Archive for the ‘eric holder’ category

The Cannabis Is Out Of The Bag

May 23rd, 2013

This week, the Colorado General Assembly put the finishing touches on legislation aimed at taxing and regulating the commercial distribution of marijuana for recreational use. The process has been haunted by the fear that the federal government will try to quash this momentous experiment in pharmacological tolerance — a fear magnified by the Obama administration’s continuing silence on the subject.

Six months after voters in Colorado and Washington made history by voting to legalize marijuana, Attorney General Eric Holder still has not said how the Justice Department plans to respond. But if the feds are smart, they will not just refrain from interfering, they will work together with state officials to minimize smuggling of newly legal marijuana to jurisdictions that continue to treat it as contraband. A federal crackdown can only make the situation worse — for prohibitionists as well as consumers.

Shutting down state-licensed pot stores probably would not be very hard. A few well-placed letters threatening forfeiture and prosecution would do the trick for all but the bravest cannabis entrepreneurs. But what then?

Under Amendment 64, the Colorado initiative, people 21 or older already are allowed to possess up to an ounce of marijuana, grow up to six plants for personal use and keep the produce of those plants ( potentially a lot more than an ounce ) on the premises where they are grown. It is also legal to transfer up to an ounce “without remuneration” and to “assist” others in growing and consuming marijuana.

Put those provisions together, and you have permission for various cooperative arrangements that can serve as alternative sources of marijuana should the feds stop pot stores from operating. The Denver Post reports that “an untold number” of cannabis collectives have formed in Colorado since Amendment 64 passed.

Washington’s initiative, I-502, does not allow home cultivation. But UCLA drug policy expert Mark Kleiman, who is advising the Washington Liquor Control Board on how to regulate the cannabis industry, argues that collectives ostensibly organized to serve patients under that state’s medical marijuana law could fill the supply gap if pot stores never open.

It is also possible that Washington’s legislature would respond to federal meddling by letting people grow marijuana for personal use, because otherwise there would be no legal source.

With pot shops offering a decent selection at reasonable prices, these alternative suppliers will account for a tiny share of the marijuana market, just as home brewing accounts for a tiny share of the beer market. But if federal drug warriors prevent those stores from operating, they will be confronted by myriad unregulated, small-scale growers, who will be a lot harder to identify, let alone control, than a few highly visible, state-licensed businesses.

The feds, who account for only 1 percent of marijuana arrests, simply do not have the manpower to go after all those growers. Nor do they have the constitutional authority to demand assistance from state and local law enforcement agencies that no longer treat pot growing as a crime.

Given this reality, legal analyst Stuart Taylor argues in a recent Brookings Institution paper, the Obama administration and officials in Colorado and Washington should “hammer out clear, contractual cooperation agreements so that state-regulated marijuana businesses will know what they can and cannot safely do.” Such enforcement agreements, which are authorized by the Controlled Substances Act, would provide more security than a mere policy statement, although less than congressional legislation.

Taylor, who says he has no firm views on the merits of legalization, warns that “a federal crackdown would backfire by producing an atomized, anarchic, state-legalized but unregulated marijuana market that federal drug enforcers could neither contain nor force the states to contain.” Noting recent polls finding that 50 percent or more of Americans favor legalizing marijuana, he says the public debate over that issue would benefit from evidence generated by the experiments in Colorado and Washington. That’s assuming the feds do not go on a senseless rampage through these laboratories of democracy.

Source: Odessa American (TX)
Copyright: 2013 Odessa American
Contact: oaletters@oaoa.com
Website: http://www.oaoa.com/
Author: Jacob Sullum

No comments »

Posted in Barack Obama, Colorado, eric holder, Highlighted, prohibition, United States Cannabis News, Washington

Legalizing Marijuana For Profit Is A Bad Idea

April 25th, 2013

The push to legalize Marijuana is going Gangham style. In the past several months, 55 percent of voters in Colorado and Washington approved a ballot measure making it legal for medical and nonmedical uses, and a slew of polls indicate that a majority of Americans now support making Marijuana as legal as cigarettes and alcohol.

Changing public attitudes is a big reason why the drive to let people legally “toke” up is gaining traction. But the question on the minds of politicians and business leaders is how much money can be made from this new industry?

Earlier this month Fortune magazine ran an unusual cover story attempting to answer this question. The article featured a group of West Coast Cannabis entrepreneurs who are seeking investments from prominent venture capital firms. These entrepreneurs want to produce and market products that will make smoking pot easy, sexy, and appealing. What’s their selling point? Cannabis could represent a $47 billion industry opportunity.

A broader selling point is that legalizing marijuana could help state governments cut their enforcement budgets and generate tax revenue. Since 1970, state and federal authorities have spent billions enforcing marijuana laws, but pot continues to be ubiquitous. Police have not reduced production, and laws are applied inconsistently across the spectrum of socioeconomic and minority populations.

The economic argument carries great weight for proponents. As revelers lit up last weekend to mark 4-20, the annual celebration of all-things weed, it’s tough to argue that consumer demand isn’t there. Legalizing an already booming black-market industry means the potential for job creation and a fresh source of income for state treasuries scrambling in the age of the sequesters.

However, once you clean the bong, this line of thinking goes up in smoke.

First, just because public opinion and economic arguments indicate otherwise, Congress must ask some hard questions before it changes 50-years of national drug policy. Questions like: why has marijuana enforcement failed? Is the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 fundamentally flawed? And if so, what can be done to reform it?

Finding the answers to these questions is not at the top of the political agenda. Attorney General Eric Holder testified recently about federal policies in relation to the newly passed Colorado and Washington initiatives, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) promised that the panel would discuss federal policies in light of the country’s patchwork of state marijuana laws. But there has been no concerted push for broad scale reform similar to the activities associated with the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act of 2009 or the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Second, legalizing cannabis for profit is simply a bad idea. It flies in the face of social responsibility. The acquisition of profit is driven by self-interest, not the common good. Business decisions are made based on how the outcome will improve the bottom line.

It wouldn’t be long before marijuana companies – likely backed by big tobacco, with its in-place marketing and distribution teams – started aggressive efforts to win consumers. They’ll develop attractive packaging, new and interesting flavors and strains, optimal paper to enhance the smoking effect, and compelling advertising campaigns all designed to get consumers hooked.

There will be messages appealing to long-time pot smokers and new pot smokers. There will be brands for youths, college kids, minorities, the poor, women, and urbanites. Smokers will come to believe they can’t live without their daily “wake & bake” just as they believe they can’t live without their smartphones or iPads. The mass-market consumption of marijuana will bring with it the same negative and ubiquitous effects we’ve seen with alcohol and cigarettes: health problems, driving under the influence, and addiction.

Once the industry gets rolling, those celebrated tax revenues will probably evaporate. Just in the last few days, Colorado State University released a study indicating that the tax revenues expected from the Centennial State’s newly legal industry will not pay for its regulation. Nor will it bring in a windfall of money proponents promised would pay for new school construction and other social benefits.

Even if the tax projections do pan out, as the industry grows in size and influence, lobbyists will exert pressure on politicians to lower taxes and loosen regulations, just as the tobacco industry has done in the past, to maximize profitability. This is the nature of the interplay of business and politics; for the most part, business has the upper hand.

Other advocates point to the potential of a diminished drug trade – growers, particularly Mexican drug gangs, will no longer have as lucrative a demand for their wares, and dealers won’t be engaging in criminal activity because their sales have dried up. But this too doesn’t factor in the flip side of business: where one market opportunity ends, another one begins. Drug lords may see a short-term curtailment of their revenue upon legalization, but they’ll branch out to sell other illegal substances, like some new designer drug or some drug that has been out of vogue.

Legalizing marijuana isn’t a simple, creative way to fill up the government’s depleted bank account or strike it rich in a new industry. It will only add to the cacophony of big businesses jockeying for your dollar and competing for politicians’ favor. The public needs to take a long-pause before it starts clamoring for the legal right to buy marijuana at the local 7-Eleven. Social responsibility dictates caution.

Source: Topix LLC
Link: http://politix.topix.com/homepage/5760-legalizing-marijuana-for-profit-is-a-bad-idea
Author: Jamie P. Chandler and Palmer Gibbs
Date: April 23, 2013

No comments »

Posted in eric holder, Highlighted, Marijuana Law Enforcement, Marijuana Laws, marijuana legalization, Propaganda, United States Cannabis News

Wash. Touts Credentials of Pot Consultant

March 19th, 2013

Green thumb? Check. Extensive knowledge of the black market? Check. Throw in impeccable academic credentials and decades of experience with government agencies, and you have Washington’s marijuana consultant — a team advising officials on all things pot as they develop rules for the state’s new industry in legal, heavily taxed marijuana.

The Washington Liquor Control Board introduced Massachusetts-based BOTEC Analysis Corp. as the presumptive winner of the consultant contract during a news conference Tuesday. The team is led by a University of California, Los Angeles, public policy professor and includes a former executive of the company that is the sole licensed supplier of medical marijuana in the Netherlands. It also includes researchers with the RAND Corp. who will help figure out how much marijuana state-licensed growers should produce.

“These are, by far, the top consultants available,” said Randy Simmons, who oversees the implementation of the legal weed law for the board. “We’re serious about doing this the right way.”

Washington and Colorado last year became the first states to pass laws legalizing the recreational use of marijuana and setting up systems of state-licensed growers, processors and retail stores where adults over 21 can walk in and buy up to an ounce of heavily taxed cannabis. Sales could begin at the end of the year.

The votes left state officials with a daunting task: figuring out how to build a huge pot industry from scratch. The state’s Liquor Control Board must determine how many growers and stores there should be, how much pot should be produced, how it should be packaged, and how it should be tested to ensure people don’t get sick.

The board is doing a lot of its own research, with buttoned-up bureaucrats traveling to grow operations in California and Colorado as well as within Washington state. But the consultant’s advice will also be important. The state is aiming to produce just enough marijuana to meet current demand: Producing too little would drive up prices and help the black market flourish, while producing too much could lead to excess pot being trafficked out of state.

BOTEC — it stands for “back of the envelope calculations” — is a 30-year-old think tank headed by Mark Kleiman, a UCLA public policy professor with a doctorate from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. The firm has evaluated government programs and provided consulting relating to drug abuse, crime and public health. It studied the results of an effort to crack down on heroin dealers in Lynn, Mass., and in the early 1990s advised the Office of National Drug Control Policy on drug-demand reduction programs.

Kleiman has written several books on drug policy and crime, including “Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know,” and he has argued that states can’t legalize marijuana — federal officials would never stand for it.

“Pot dealers nationwide — and from Canada, for that matter — would flock to California to stock up,” he wrote in an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times in 2010, when California was considering legalizing marijuana. “There’s no way on earth the federal government is going to tolerate that. Instead, we’d see massive federal busts of California growers and retail dealers, no matter how legal their activity was under state law.”

For that reason, some marijuana advocates questioned how committed his team would be to carrying out the will of the voters. But Alison Holcomb, the author of Washington’s new law, said the choice of a consultant who isn’t a pot cheerleader sent a message that the state is taking its responsibilities seriously.

That’s a crucial concern because state officials are trying to persuade the federal government not to sue to block the law from taking effect. Gov. Jay Inslee has said he stressed to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that Washington will have the best-regulated system possible, but the Justice Department still has not announced its intentions.

Steven Davenport, BOTEC’s managing director, said that with more than 30 people involved, the team comprises a wide range of opinions on marijuana legalization, but none is relevant to the task at hand: figuring out how it can best be accomplished, balancing the needs of a working marijuana distribution system with the interests of public health.

“We understand the significance and the size of the task in front of us,” Davenport said. “Our intent is to make sure the board does this correctly.”

Other team members include Michael Sautman, former CEO of Bedrocan International, the international affiliate of the only company licensed to produce medical marijuana for patients in the Netherlands; the company is overseen by the Dutch Ministry of Health, according to BOTEC’s bid for the contract.

Sautman “has consulted lawmakers and regulators in Canada, Israel and several U.S. states regarding how medical marijuana is produced and distributed in the Netherlands,” the bid reads.

Beau Kilmer, co-director of RAND’s Drug Policy Research Center, said RAND is already under contract with the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy to develop a new approach for estimating the number of marijuana users across the country and how much pot they consume. His group will build off that work to estimate use by county in Washington state, and that it could involve Internet-based surveys asking people to detail their cannabis use — to the extent of asking them to explain the size of their most recent joint, as compared with a photograph of a joint next to a credit card or ruler for scale.

“That’s going to be a challenge, but I’m excited to work on it,” Kilmer said.

The value of BOTEC’s contract has not been set, but it is expected to exceed $100,000. The losing bidders have 10 days to contest the award.

Source: Washington Post (DC)
Author: Gene Johnson, The Associated Press
Published: March 19, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Washington Post Company
Contact: letters@washpost.com
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/

No comments »

Posted in Barack Obama, BOTEC, eric holder, Highlighted, marijuana legalization, United States Cannabis News, Washington

States Should Set Own Marijuana Laws

March 11th, 2013

Eight Former Directors of the Drug Enforcement Administration, As Well As Other Assorted Big Names Associated With National Drug Policy, Are Turning Up the Heat on Attorney General Eric Holder to Crack Down on Colorado and Washington for Legalizing Marijuana Last Fall.

Even the United Nations is getting into the act. A U.N.based agency, the International Narcotics Control Board, claimed this week that the Obama administration will violate treaties if it doesn’t take action to stop the two states from forging a new marijuana policy.

So far, Holder continues to say the administration is close to announcing its policy, but is not quite there. On Wednesday, for example, he told a Senate panel his department was “still considering” how to proceed.

We hope Holder and his advisers take a deep breath and consider the source of these increasingly shrill attempts to persuade Washington to try to reverse the will of Colorado and Washington voters – and then ignore them.

Is it really surprising that former leaders of the war on drugs want to perpetuate their legacy rather than see another approach aimed at suppressing the black market in marijuana take root?

As Holder knows, the federal government cannot force states to enforce federal pot laws – so like it or not, the drug’s possession will likely remain legal here and in Washington unless, in a colossal waste of resources, DEA agents are ordered to target recreational possession. However, the president himself has already said prosecuting recreational users is not a “top priority.”

So whether a U.N. agency likes it or not, legalization is not going away. No treaty trumps our federal system.

Meanwhile, the big question is what attitude the federal government will take toward growing and selling marijuana commercially – activities the DEA could readily shut down.

That’s what the former DEA chiefs want, of course, and in a letter this week to senators they asked, “Why isn’t the Department of Justice enforcing the Controlled Substances Act in Colorado and Washington?”

Let’s hope Holder understands that it’s no small matter for the federal government to trample on state prerogatives when the consensus that once supported the nation’s drug laws has utterly broken down. He should let Colorado and Washington implement their laws in the coming months just as their voters intended.

Source: Register Citizen (CT)
Copyright: 2013 Denver Post
Contact: editor@registercitizen.com
Website: http://www.registercitizen.com

No comments »

Posted in Barack Obama, Colorado, DEA, eric holder, Highlighted, state laws, United States Cannabis News

Eric Holder Gets an Earful on Marijuana

March 8th, 2013

Attorney General Eric Holder is getting plenty of conflicting advice as he tries to figure out how the federal government should respond to the decision by voters in Washington state and Colorado to legalize marijuana for recreational use.

The latest came Wednesday from Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who told Holder to focus on prosecuting larger federal crimes as he deals with the fallout of automatic spending cuts ordered by Congress.

If you’re going to be because of budget cuts prioritizing matters, I would suggest there are more serious things than minor possession of marijuana, but it’s a personal view, Leahy told Holder, adding that other states are sure to follow the lead of Washington and Colorado.

While Leahy urged leniency, others want Holder to use his job as the nation’s top law enforcement official to get tough with states that want to ignore federal drug laws.

On Tuesday, eight former Drug Enforcement Administration chiefs said the Obama administration should move aggressively to nullify the state legalization laws.

And on the same day, a United Nations agency said the United States would be violating international drug treaties by allowing the state laws to stand.

Holder told senators that he’s reviewing the states new laws and plans a quick decision after having already met with governors of both states.

We’ve had good communication. . . . I expect that we will have an ability to announce what our policy is going to be relatively soon, Holder said.

With the state and federal laws clearly at odds, Holder is sure to face heat no matter what he decides. And so far, he has given little public indication of what he will do.

Marijuana advocates, however, are hoping that Holder’s boss, President Barack Obama, is on their side.

When the president was asked about the new state laws in an interview with ABC’s Barbara Walters in December, Obama suggested that the federal government would be unlikely to take a hard line, saying: We’ve got bigger fish to fry.

As both Washington and Colorado continue with their plans to open marijuana dispensaries later this year, the legalization issue promises to get more attention on Capitol Hill in coming weeks.

Leahy announced earlier that he wants his committee to conduct a hearing into the differences among state and federal laws governing marijuana. He said he wants to make sure that state laws are respected and that state officials in Washington and Colorado who are charged with the licensing of marijuana retailers will not face federal criminal penalties.

Under federal law, marijuana remains a controlled substance, and possession or distribution of the drug is a criminal offense that can result in prison time.

In December, Leahy wrote a letter to the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, saying that his committee had a significant interest in the issue and that Congress could act to end the uncertainty facing residents in Washington and Colorado.

As one option, Leahy said, the Federal Controlled Substances Act could be changed to allow for the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana, at least in places where it’s already legal under state law.

In the House, two bills were introduced last month that would end the federal prohibition against marijuana and create new regulatory systems to deal with its legalization.

One, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado, would remove marijuana from the list of controlled substances and allow it to be regulated much like alcohol at the federal level. The second, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, would create a federal excise tax on the sale of marijuana.

Source: Miami Herald (FL)
Author: Rob Hotakainen, McClatchy Newspapers
Published: March 6, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Miami Herald
Contact: heralded@herald.com
URL: http://drugsense.org/url/RmrlXUKN
Website: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/

No comments »

Posted in eric holder, Highlighted, marijuana legalization, United States Cannabis News

Holder Promises Marijuana Verdict Coming ‘Soon’

February 26th, 2013

Attorney General Eric Holder promised Washington and Colorado state attorneys general on Tuesday that the Justice Department would issue its verdict “soon” on how it plans to treat the states’ recent moves to legalize marijuana.

“We’re still in the process of reviewing both of the initiatives that were passed,” said Holder, speaking at the National Association of Attorney General annual conference in Washington, D.C.

“You will hear soon. We’re in the last stages of that review and we’re trying to make a determination as to what the policy ramifications are going to be, what our international obligations are — there are a whole variety of things that go into this determination — but the people of [Colorado] and Washington deserve an answer and you will have one soon.”

Holder was responding to Colorado state attorney general John Suthers, who asked the nation’s top law enforcement official when the DOJ would be weighing in on the state laws that have been in effect for nearly two months.

The DOJ is charged with enforcing the federal prohibition on marijuana, and the state laws run counter to the long-existing ban, creating a debate over which law should be enforced and which law is most responsive to the will of the people.

Marijuana has been a centerpiece of the federal government’s “war on drugs,” aimed at cracking down on drug use in the United States. But the growing number of people who support the decriminalization of pot — which is still legally classified nationally in the same category as heroin — has some policymakers in Washington, D.C., rethinking their approach.

On Monday, nearly a dozen House Democrats introduced several bills that would decriminalize marijuana and remove the drug from the list of controlled substances, while requiring the federal government to regulate it and impose penalties on tax-evaders.

Holder has met or talked with both governors and attorneys general from Colorado and Washington during the DOJ’s review process, posing a series of questions to the state leaders, such as how they plan to prevent marijuana produced in the state from being trafficked to other states where the drug is not legal.

Source: Hill, The (US DC)
Author: Jordy Yager
Published: February 26, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Hill
Website: http://www.hillnews.com/

No comments »

Posted in Colorado, eric holder, Highlighted, marijuana legalization, United States Cannabis News, Washington

Alternet: “Will Obama Go After Legal Pot In Washington And Colorado?”

December 19th, 2012

It has been nearly seven weeks since voters in Colorado and Washington made history, enacting at the ballot box unprecedented measures legalizing the adult possession on cannabis. Yet during this time, federal officials have largely remained silent.

One week ago, US Attorney General Eric Holder cryptically told Bloomberg News that the administration will formally announce its intentions “relatively soon,” but added no further details. Most recently, on Friday, President Obama told ABC News’ Barbara Walters: “It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it’s legal. … We’ve got bigger fish to fry.” Of course, federal officials do not target minor marijuana offenders now — so the President’s statement provides little clarity as to what actions the Administration may take going forward as Colorado and Washington begin implementing broader regulatory reforms, including measures to license proprietors to commercially produce and sell cannabis to adults.

Today, in Alternet.org, I speculate as to what actions the Administration may take — and what actions they may not take — in the coming weeks as state lawmakers work toward the full implementation of Colorado and Washington’s newly enacted marijuana laws. An excerpt from this commentary appears below.

Will Obama Go After Legal Pot in Washington and Colorado?
via Alternet.org

With public opinion firmly behind the will of the voters, is it realistic to think that the Obama Justice Department will take action to try and nullify Colorado and Washington’s legalization laws? It’s possible, but it may not be as likely as some think.

For starters, states are not mandated under the US Controlled Substances Act to criminalize marijuana or to arrest and prosecute adult cannabis consumers and the federal government cannot compel prosecutors in Colorado or Washington to do so. The Justice Department and the US Drug Enforcement Administration could, theoretically, choose to selectively prosecute those individuals in Colorado and Washington who possess or grow quantities of plant that are compliant with state law. But such a scenario is hardly plausible. The federal government lacks the manpower and the public support – and therefore the political will – to engage in such behavior and this reality is unlikely to change any time soon. As acknowledged by former congressman and ex-DEA director Asa Hutchinson at a recent CATO Institute forum on the subject, the federal government never has prosecuted people for possessing an ounce of marijuana and it is not about to start doing so now.

By contrast, the Obama administration may attempt to actively prohibit states from allowing for the above-ground, licensed production and sale of cannabis by authorized proprietors. Justice Department officials could theoretically do so by either bringing a legal challenge against the states, by threatening local officials, or by proposing to withhold federal funding. But none of these actions are assured. Here’s why.

To date, the Obama administration has done little to interfere with the state-approved production and licensed distribution of medical marijuana in those states that explicitly license and regulate this activity — specifically in Arizona, Colorado, Maine, New Jersey, and New Mexico. (In recent days, some of the first state-approved dispensaries opened for business in Arizona and New Jersey. In coming months, licensed dispensaries are also anticipated to open their doors to the public in Vermont as well as the District of Columbia. **AUTHOR’S NOTE: By contrast, the Justice Department has taken actions to aggressively close operations in California, Oregon, Montana, and Washington — though none of these states explicitly license dispensaries.**) In Colorado – where the state has licensed several hundreds of cannabis dispensaries and oversees “seed to sale” regulations governing the plant’s production and distribution – federal officials have yet to either file suit or threaten any of the state regulators who oversee the program. In response to a lawsuit filed in 2011 by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who sought to invalidate the state’s 2010 medical cannabis law, lawyers for the federal government affirmed that the administration had never engaged in such strong-arm tactics and did not intend to.

The federal judge in the case agreed. She rejected Gov. Brewer’s legal arguments that the operation of state-approved medical marijuana dispensaries was preempted by federal law or put state employees at risk for federal prosecution, determining “[T]he Complaint does not detail any history of prosecution of state employees for participation in state medical marijuana licensing schemes [and] fails to establish that Plaintiffs are subject to a genuine threat of imminent prosecution and consequently, the Complaint does not meet the constitutional requirements for ripeness.”

A Maricopa County (AZ) Superior Court ruling from earlier this month further affirms that states possess the legal authority to regulate the legal distribution of cannabis, at least in some specific instances, without running afoul of federal anti-drug laws. In the case before the Court, White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County, Judge Michael Gordon determined that the federal Controlled Substances Act did not preempt Arizona’s efforts to authorize “the local cultivation, sale, and use, of medical marijuana.” Writing for the Court, Judge Gordon declared that nothing in Arizona’s law circumvents federal law since Justice Department officials could still continue to locally enforce the Controlled Substances Act. In fact, Judge Gordon suggested that the new law “affirmatively provides a roadmap for federal enforcement of the CSA, if they so wished to” since the statute requires patients and proprietors to register their activities with the state. He concluded: “The Court rejects … arguments that the [law] violates public policy simply because marijuana use and possession violate federal law. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation permitting the use of marijuana in whole or in part. The Court will not rule that Arizona, having sided with the ever-growing minority of States, and having limited it to medical use, has violated public policy.”

Some legal experts, including law professor Robert Mikos of Vanderbilt University Law School, suggest an additional legal theory as to why Colorado and Washington’s proposed regulatory schemes may not be subject to federal preemption. Speaking at a recent CATO Institute sponsored forum, Mikos suggested that the newly enacted state legalization laws do not violate the spirit or the intent of the Controlled Substances Act because the federal law exists for the expressed purpose of limiting the consumption of certain substances by the public, particularly young people. One can argue that the proposed statewide regulatory schemes in Colorado and Washington – which impose age restrictions for buyers and limit sellers to those authorized by the state – are intended to serve a similar purpose. Further, the proposed state programs, “do not stop federal authorities from sanctioning registrants.” Notably, Superior Court Judge Gordon specifically highlighted these arguments in his decision to uphold Arizona’s law and to reject claims that it positively conflicted with federal law.

“No one can argue that the federal government’s ability to enforce the CSA is impaired to the slightest degree [by Arizona’s medical marijuana law],” he opined. “Instead of frustrating the CSA’s purpose, it is sensible to argue that the [law] furthers the CSA’s objectives in combating drug abuse and the illegitimate trafficking of controlled substances.”

You can read the full text of my commentary here.

No comments »

Posted in Amendment 64, Colorado, eric holder, government, I-502, Justice Department, law enforcement, legalization, Legislation, Obama, Washington

Law Enforcement Leaders Ask Department of Justice to Respect State Marijuana Laws

November 20th, 2012

Group Cites Public Safety Concerns Created by Illegal Marketplace

Teleconference With Colorado and Washington Law Enforcers at 12:00 PM ET

WASHINGTON, DC – This morning a former narcotics cop delivered a letter signed by 73 current and former police officers, judges, prosecutors and federal agents to Attorney General Eric Holder urging him not to interfere with the wishes of the voters of Colorado and Washington State to legalize and regulate marijuana.

"We seem to be at a turning point in how our society deals with marijuana," said Neill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, the group that authored the letter. "The war on marijuana has funded the expansion of drug cartels, it has destroyed community-police relations and it has fostered teenage use by creating an unregulated market where anyone has easy access. Prohibition has failed. Pretty much everyone knows it, especially those of us who dedicated our lives to enforcing it. The election results show that the people are ready to try something different. The opportunity clearly exists for President Obama and Attorney General Holder to do the right thing and respect the will of the voters."

Neill Franklin delivers a letter to the Department of Justice

There will be a teleconference for reporters interested in speaking with Mr. Franklin and other law enforcement signatories of the letter, as well as an NAACP leader, today at 12:00 PM ET. Please call 1-800-311-9403 (Passcode: "Marijuana"). Individual interviews are also available. The text of the letter delivered today to Eric Holder is online at http://www.leap.cc/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/leap-letter-to-doj.pdf

The signatories of the letter collectively represent more than 1,100 years of experience in law enforcement.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) is a group of police, judges, prosecutors, corrections officials and federal agents who, after witnessing the harms of the drug war firsthand, are now devoted to ending that war. More info at http://www.CopsSayLegalizeMarijuana.com.

#        #        #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 20, 2012
CONTACT: Tom Angell -- (202) 557-4979 or media@leap.cc
                    Darby Beck -- (415) 823-5496 or darby.beck@leap.cc

November 20, 2012

The Honorable Eric Holder
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Attorney General and Our Colleagues in the Department of Justice,

As fellow law enforcement and criminal justice professionals we respectfully call upon you to respect and abide by the democratically enacted laws to regulate marijuana in Colorado and Washington. This is not a challenge to you, but an invitation – an invitation to help return our profession to the principles that made us enter law enforcement in the first place.

We went into law enforcement, despite its long hours and constant frustrations, because we wanted to serve our communities. We wanted to save people, to protect them, and there are few more selfless and noble callings on this earth. But the second we overthrow the will of the people, we fail to live up to the promise of that calling.

The great American political writings upon which this country was founded were based in John Locke’s concept of the social contract, which recognizes that the authority of police, and of all government, is derived from the people. And the people have spoken. To disregard the fact is to undermine the legitimacy of the ideas for which our forefathers fought and died.

This is not merely an academic argument. August Vollmer, father of professional policing and primary author of the Wickersham Commission report that served to bring an end to the prohibition of alcohol, opposed the enforcement of drug laws, saying that they "engender disrespect both for law and for the agents of law enforcement." His words ring as true today as they did in 1929. After 40 years of the drug war, people no longer look upon law enforcement as heroes but as people to be feared. This is particularly true in poor neighborhoods and in those of people of color, and it impacts our ability to fight real crime.

One day the decision you are about to make about whether or not to respect the people’s will may well come to be the one for which you are known. The war on marijuana has contributed to tens of thousands of deaths both here and south of the border, it has empowered and expanded criminal networks and it has destroyed the mutual feeling of respect once enjoyed between citizens and police. It has not, however, reduced the supply or the demand of the drug and has only served to further alienate – through arrest and imprisonment – those who consume it.

At every crucial moment in history, there comes a time when those who derive their power from the public trust forge a new path by disavowing their expected function in the name of the greater good. This is your moment. As fellow officers who have seen the destruction the war on marijuana has wrought on our communities, on our police forces, on our lives, we hope that you will join us in seeking a better world.

Sincerely,

Executive Director Stanford “Neill” Franklin, Baltimore, MD
Retired State Police Major (34 years law enforcement experience)

Board and Advisory Board Members

Jack A. Cole, Medford, MA
Retired Police Detective Lieutenant, New Jersey State (26 years)

Peter Christ, Syracuse, NY
Retired Police Captain (20 years)

Stephen Downing, Los Angeles, CA
Retired Deputy Chief of Police (20 years)

James E. Gierach, Chicago, IL
Former Drug Prosecutor (12 years)

Leigh Maddox, Esq., Baltimore, MD
Retired Police Captain (17 years)

Joseph McNamara, Stanford, CA
Retired Chief of Police, Kansas City, MO and San Jose, CA (35 years)

Terry Nelson, Granbury, TX
Retired Customs and Border Protection Aviation/Marine Group Supervisor in Texas, Florida and Latin America (32 years)

Tony Ryan, Sioux Falls, SD
Retired Lieutenant Police Officer, Denver PD (36 years)

Richard Van Wickler, Stoddard, NH
Superintendent, Department of Corrections (25 years)

Speakers

MacKenzie Allen, Santa Fe, NM
Former Master Police Officer and Drug Detective in Seattle and Los Angeles (15 years)

Daniel-Paul Alva, Philadelphia, PA
Former Assistant District Attorney (2 years)

John Amabile, Brockton, MA
Former Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General (4 years)

James Anthony, Oakland, CA
Former Community Prosecutor (3 years)

Dean Becker, Houston, TX
Former Air Force Security Police Officer (3 years)

Nate Bradley, Sheridan, CA
Former Deputy Sheriff, Wheatland PD (5 years)

Arnold J. “Jim” Byron, Burlington, WA
Retired United States Customs Inspector in Minnesota and Washington State (31 years)

Jerry Cameron, Saint Augustine, FL
Retired Chief of Police (17 years)

George T. Cole, Chicago, IL
Retired Senior Special Agent (26 years)

Beth Comery, Providence, RI
Former Police Officer (5 years)

William John Cox, Long Beach, CA
Retired Police Officer and Prosecutor in Los Angeles and San Diego (40 years)

Richard F. Craig, Travelers Rest, SC
Former Lieutenant Police Officer, Rockland, MA PD (33 years)

Tim Datig, Egg Harbor, NJ
Retired Police Chief, St. Aldans Police Department, Vermont (28 years)

John Delaney, Bryan, TX
Retired District Court Judge, State of Texas (29 years)

Det. David Doddridge, St. George, UT
Retired Military Police Officer and Narcotics Detective, LAPD (21 years)

James A. Doherty, Seattle, WA
Former Corrections Officer and Prosecutor (7 years)

Sean Dunagan, Washington, DC
Former DEA Senior Intelligence Research Specialist (13 years)

Richard E. Erickson, Lakeport, CA
Retired Patrolman (22 years)

Jay Fleming, Mohave Valley, AZ
Former Narcotics Investigator, Spokane, WA (15 years)

Shelley Fox-Loken, Portland, OR
Retired Probation & Parole Officer (19 years)

Leonard I. Frieling, Boulder, CO
Former Judge (8 years)

Michael J. Gilbert, Ph. D., San Antonio, TX
Former Corrections Practitioner (12 years)

Diane M. Goldstein, Santa Ana, CA
Retired Lieutenant Police Officer (21 years)

Judge James P. Gray, Santa Ana, CA
Retired Superior Court Judge (32 years)

Jamie Haase, Greenville, SC
Former Special Agent and Customs Inspector, Baltimore and Laredo (10 years)

Karen E. Hawkes, Boston, MA
Retired State Trooper, First Class (13 years)

Patrick Heintz, Agawam, MA
Retired Correctional Officer/Counselor (20 years)

Wesley E. Johnson, J.D., Tulsa, OK
Former Police Officer (5 years)

Russell Jones, New Braunfels, TX
Former Narcotics Detective (10 years)

Jeff Kaufman, New York, NY
Former Police Officer, Special Assignment (8 years)

Kyle Kazan, Long Beach, CA
Retired Police Officer (5 years)

Leo E. Laurence, J.D., San Diego, CA
Former Deputy Sheriff

David M. Long, J.D., San Francisco, CA
Former Special Agent in Florida and California (9 years)

John Lorenzo, Southbury, CT
Retired Chief of Marine Police (20 years)

Paul R. MacLean, Concord, NH
Retired State Trooper (20 years)

Sean McAllister, Denver, CO
Former Assistant Attorney General of Colorado (3 years)

M. P. McCally, Renton, WA
Former Probation Counselor (7 years)

James W.F.E. Mooney, Washington County, UT
Retired Former Narcotics Undercover Agent and Corrections Official (10 Years)

Peter Moskos, New York, NY
Former Baltimore City Police Officer (2 years)

Richard D. Newton, Aviation Interdiction Agent, El Paso, TX
Retired US Customs & Border Protection in Florida, Puerto Rico and elsewhere (30 years)

Patrick K. Nightingale, Esquire, Pittsburgh, PA
Former Assistant District Attorney (6 years)

James J. Nolan - Morgantown, WV
Former Police Lieutenant and FBI Unit Chief, Wilmington, DE (13 years)

Nick Novello, Dallas, TX
Police Officer (30 years)

John O’ Brien, Fullerton, CA
Former Sheriff, Genessee County, MI (12 years)

Chad Padgett, Walton, IN
Former Correctional Officer (6 years)

James S. Peet, Ph.D., CFE, Sumner, WA
Former National Park Service Ranger, Police Officer, Alexandria, VA (6 years)

Titus Peterson, Denver, CO
Former Deputy District Attorney (5 years)

Howard L. Rahtz, Cincinnatti, OH
Retired Police Captain (30 years)

Richard Renfro, Detroit, MI
Retired Special Agent/Financial Criminal Investigator/Supervisor (25 years)

Charles M. Rowland II, Beavercreek, OH
Former Special Prosecutor (3 years)

Bob Scott, Franklin, NC
Retired Executive Officer (15 years)

Dwayne Sessom, Lawton, OK
Former Deputy Sheriff (3 years)

Carol Ruth Silver, San Francisco, CA
Retired Sheriff’s Department Prisoner Legal Services Director (1 year)

Ethan Simon, Albuquerque, NM
Former Assistant District Attorney (6 years)

Norm Stamper, Seattle, WA
Retired Chief of Police, San Diego and Seattle (34 years)

Eric E. Sterling, Washington, DC
Former Counsel to the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary (10 years)

Thomas P. Sullivan, Chicago, IL
Former U.S. Attorney (4 years)

Betty Taylor, St. Louis, MO
Former Police Chief, Winfield PD (7 years)

Jason Thomas, Denver, CO
Former Detention Officer and Deputy Marshall (2 years)

John Tommasi, Durham, NH
Retired Police Sergeant (37 years)

Kyle Vogt, Port St. Lucie, FL
Former Military Police Officer (4 years)

Richard K. Watkins, Ed. D., Huntsville, TX
Retired Senior Prison Warden (20 years)

Rusty White, Bridgeport, TX
Former Correctional Officer, Arizona State (7 years)

No comments »

Posted in Barack Obama, eric holder, neill franklin, press release, U.S. Department of Justice

Politico Reports On Obama’s Medical Cannabis Conundrum

April 23rd, 2012

The most widely read political website, Politico.com, covers the now clear controversy the Obama Administration has found itself in regarding its semi-articulated medical cannabis policy position post hundreds of law enforcement closures of medical cannabis dispensaries since the fall of 2011.

Beyond bringing this political quandary regarding medical cannabis to a well informed readership, what is notable about the reportage is that buried in the piece is an apparent recent confrontation between cannabis law reform proponent Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and President Obama at a swank fundraiser directly across the street from NORML’s offices at the St. Regis Hotel where Frank confronted the President about the disparity between his rhetoric in favor of medical cannabis and the recent law enforcement actions of his Justice Department.

Frustratingly, the President claims that he does not know what is going on in states like California, Washington, Montana and Colorado regarding DOJ’s efforts to seriously retard patient access to medical cannabis.

Obama sees his history on medical marijuana enforcement differently. The president was again asked about the Justice Department medical marijuana policy at a high-dollar fundraiser at Washington’s St. Regis Hotel filled with liberal mega-donors who paid $35,800 a plate to attend. According to a source with knowledge of the event, which was closed to reporters, Obama reportedly said that the DOJ was raiding purely on a case-by-case basis.

Frank says he got a frustrating response when he buttonholed Obama to complain that this wasn’t true: Obama told the Massachusetts Democrat that, to the best of his knowledge, the 2009 hands-off policy remained in place.

Frank told POLITICO that he’s preparing to send the president press clippings to demonstrate that raids continue across the country.

The tide has turned on the issue — beyond medical marijuana, there’s growing support for full legalization — Frank said, and there’s no reason the president should be lagging behind.

“Obama now lags Pat Robertson in a sensible approach to marijuana,” said Frank, referring to the conservative evangelical leader’s recent criticism of the drug war.

Obama’s pot promise a pipe dream?
By: Byron Tau
April 21, 2012

President Barack Obama has turned out to be a real buzzkill.

Back when he was running in 2008, Obama said he supported the “basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs” and that he was “not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws.” He didn’t go farther. But he also didn’t do anything to dissuade speculation among medical marijuana proponents who took this as a sign that the man headed to the Oval Office was on their side.

Four years later, the raids on drug dispensaries have kept up — despite a Justice Department memo formalizing low-enforcement priority instructions from Attorney General Eric Holder, who announced in a March 2009 press conference that the raids would stop on distributors who were in compliance with state and local law. Obama never said anything about supporting legalization or decriminalization, but his medical marijuana statements were enough to get him heralded by some in the larger pro-pot community as the best hope for chipping away at the decades-long drug war.

But the hopes that Obama would be a kinder, gentler, more tolerant drug warrior have gone up in smoke.

“I’m very disappointed,” Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a longtime supporter of marijuana legalization and medical marijuana, told POLITICO. “They look more like the Bush administration than the Clinton administration.”

The dejected medical marijuana supporters are hardly alone. For many in 2008, candidate Obama was like a political Rorschach test: They projected strong progressive positions about everything from legalizing gay marriage to ending all military involvement onto a candidate who never said he agreed with them — but also never explicitly said he didn’t.

Now they’re looking at four years into the Obama administration and wondering where they went wrong.

Read the rest at Politico

No comments »

Posted in barney frank, eric holder, government, Justice Department, legalization, Politico. President Obama

Government’s Crackdown On Medical Cannabis Not Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules

March 2nd, 2012

A federal judge in Sacramento this week dismissed a federal lawsuit filed in November by members of the NORML Legal Committee against the US Department of Justice, US Attorney General Eric Holder, and DEA Director Michele Leonhart. The lawsuit (read it here), one of four filed simultaneously in the state’s four federal districts, argues that the Justice Department’s ongoing crackdown against medical marijuana providers and distributors in California is in violation of the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution because the use of cannabis therapeutically is a fundamental right. Petitioners also argue, using the theory of judicial estoppel, that the Justice Department had previously affirmed in public memos and in statements made in federal court that it would no longer use federal resources to prosecute cannabis patients or providers who are compliant with state law.

On Wednesday, US District Judge Garland Burrell, Jr., rejected those arguments and and granted the respondent’s dismissal motion. He denied petitioners request for public hearings prior to making his ruling.

Judge Burrell rejected plaintiffs’ Ninth and Tenth Amendment challenges, finding: “Since the Supreme Court has held the that CSA’s (federal Controlled Substances Act) categorical prohibition of the possession, manufacturing, and distribution of marijuana does not exceed Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause (Article I Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution), plaintiffs do not have a viable …. claim.”

He also rejected plaintiffs’ equal protection arguments, finding that the Justice Department’s actions in California mimic efforts the federal government has taken against “similarly situated individuals” elsewhere. Judge Burrell also cited court rulings finding that defendants in previous challenges have failed to meet the “heavy burden of proving the irrationality of the schedule I classification of marijuana.”

Finally, Judge Burrell dismissed plaintiff’s judicial estoppel clam, which argues that defendants’ “recent crackdown … against medical cannabis patients flouts the representations made on the record by the Department of Justice” in public memos and statements in court. Responding to this challenge, Judge Burrell determined, “Since judicial estoppel does not apply unless ‘a party’s later position [is] ‘clearly inconsistent with its earlier position,’ and the Ogden memo does not contain a promise not to enforce the CSA, defendants’ enforcement of the CSA is not inconsistent.”

Commenting on the ruling, Attorney David Michael of San Francisco, who along with Matt Kumin and Alan Silber were the lead attorneys in these four challenges, said “We are disappointed, but not discouraged, that the District Courts have thus far denied us the relief we had sought. They are constrained by existing precedent, and the result was not unexpected. It is the Ninth Circuit where we hope to find a receptive audience, and, with the Lawrence v. Texas decision, we may also have a more receptive audience in the Supreme Court, should the issue go there.”

Judges for the Ninth Circuit had previously determined in Raich v Gonzalez: “For now, federal law is blind to the wisdom of a future day when the right to use medical marijuana to alleviate excruciating pain may be deemed fundamental. Although that day has not yet dawned, … (it) may be upon us sooner than expected.”

No comments »

Posted in Activism, Burrell, Controlled Substances Act, crackdown, eric holder, Justice Department, lawsuite, Legislation, medical marijuana, Michele Leonhart, NORML Legal Committee, Obama, raids

« Older Entries