by Dan Aiello –
The aggressiveness and scale of the federal law enforcement’s raids surprised many local authorities and frightened the state’s dispensary operators, growers, patients and advocates for medical marijuana use. The raids angered at least two state officials who saw the crackdown by the Department of Justice as an unwarranted infringement on the rights of the state and its citizens to govern the use and distribution of the drug.
Leno says he doesn’t get what he sees as a turnaround in the Obama administration and it’s Department of Justice policy toward state’s rights regarding medical marijuana.
“They are saying they’re after those who are using prop 215 for their own profit,” said Leno, referring to the federal prosecutors coordinating the raids and the state’s medical marijuana initiative passed by California voters in 1996. “But at our press conference yesterday we introduced a man who runs a small dispensary in San Francisco, a non-profit, Divinity Tree, whose landlord received a letter telling him to evict them or they will prosecute him and confiscate his property.”
The Department of Justice and federal prosecutors have touted the raids as an effort to stop the proliferation of for-profit dispensaries and prescribe-for-pay doctor’s offices that have sprouted up in communities that have no local regulations for dispensaries of medical marijuana. But Leno and Ammiano’s press conference highlighted DOJ-targeted dispensaries in communities like San Francisco and Oakland where city ordinances heavily regulate the drug’s distribution, retail tax revenue and usage.
California is one of 16 states, along with the District of Columbia, where voters approved marijuana for medical use. The fed’s crackdown comes as a new Gallup poll
shows a historic high in the nation’s approval of the drug for medicinal use.
While questions arose over whether or not medical records seized during the fed raids would be kept confidential or used to add the terminally and chronically-ill to DEA watchlists, the two legislators focused on the negative economic impact the raids would have in California communities hard hit by the recession.
Ammiano and Leno are both outraged over the threat to chronic and terminal patients posed by these raids, but they focused most of their comments on the potential loss of tax revenue and jobs they claim medical marijuana brings the economy-weary state, where unemployment currently exceeds 12.4 percent.
“Now they’re even going after radio stations and newspapers who take their ads. How many more people do they want to see lose their jobs,” Leno asked.
“Instead of supporting state efforts to effectively regulate medical marijuana in accordance with Prop 215, the Obama administration seems committed to re-criminalizing it,” said Ammiano at the press conference. “This destructive attack on medical marijuana patients is a waste of limited law enforcement resources and will cost the state millions in tax revenue and harm countless lives. I urge President Obama to reconsider this bad policy decision and respect California’s right to provide medicine to its residents.”
“You know, we have yet to see this Department of Justice prosecute a single Wall Street banker who helped bring down the world’s economy,” said Leno. “Yet they’re aggressively going after these small non-profit business operators. We’d all be better off if the administration would focus what limited resources we have on addressing home foreclosures in this state and stop wasting time and resources persecuting these dispensaries,” Leno told CPR.
Asked what the next step was for state officials Leno said, “I can’t say what we might do or what’s currently under discussion in Sacramento, but I would ask the DOJ to sit down and talk with us.”
“You know, as a candidate President Obama was fond of saying, ‘Good policy is good politics,’ said Leno. “Well I say it’s equally true that Bad policy is bad politics. As someone who desperately wants to see him re-elected, I urge the administration to sit down with us. The solution of the problem is not disproportionate enforcement but to recognize they need to do something that benefits our economy. Let’s refocus here folks.”
Calls to Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer were not returned by press time.
Dan Aiello is a Sacramento-based reporter for the California Progress Report. Article reprinted by permission of author and publication.
[quote]Ammiano and Leno are both outraged over the threat to chronic and terminal patients posed by these raids, but they focused most of their comments on the potential loss of tax revenue and jobs they claim medical marijuana brings the economy-weary state, where unemployment currently exceeds 12.4 percent.[/quote]
So its all about tax revenue? No its about jobs! No its about medicine for terminally ill patients! Let’s face it, it was always about the legalization of drugs… and as such was in direct contravention of federal law…
Vanguard: “what the next step was for state officials Leno said, “I can’t say what we might do or what’s currently under discussion in Sacramento, but I would ask the DOJ to sit down and talk with us.”
The DOJ does not need to sit down and talk with you. The state broke the law when it authorized marijuana dispensaries, medical or otherwise. There is nothing to discuss. Federal law trumps state law, and the state thought it could simply pass laws allowing dope and thumb its collective nose at the Federal govt.
There is a Federal ban on pot. If Pot is to be distributed for medical purposes, then that needs to happen at the Federal, not the state level. Furthermore, I have spoken with some of these medical marijuana recipients, and it is hardly like they are getting dope because they have terminally ill cancer. THey are getting it for things as simple as headaches or backaches, which may as well be legalized dope for the general public. “Medical” marijuana my butt.
Also, if Leno cannot appreciate the fact that marijuana is illegal, and abide by the Law, then he should not be a senator.
Prohibition was a dismal failure when the feds promulgated it in the 1920s. It created a huge illegal industry, complete with turf wars and the resultant huge influx of prisons needed to lock up booze dealers.
Trying to regulate how people self medicate has never worked,never will .
Society simply can not afford to keep one American out of every 200 in a cage. It’s too expensive.Prison is grad school for criminals.It creates a huge pool of unemployable career criminals.
We need to make legal anything that you can put in your body and hold folks responsible for their behavior while under the influence.
The prison industry, especially the federal prison industry, sees the legalization of pot as a huge threat to their monopoly. It’s just a matter of time before California legalizes pot, and frees up a lot of prison beds. Economics dictates. As California goes, so goes the nation.
The Obama administration is really alienating a lot of their former supporters by perpetuating this stubborn reenactment of 1920s prohibition.
Mr. Bockrath,
you completely ignored the main issue which is california cannot legalize anything that has been banned under Federal Law. It is also clear, CA cannot authorize Marijuana for medical purposes, let alone for general use.
“Society simply can not afford to keep one American out of every 200 in a cage. It’s too expensive.Prison is grad school for criminals.It creates a huge pool of unemployable career criminals.”
Furthermore, your claim that prohibition of pot doesn’t work is pure hogwash, and we are seeing the proof right before our very eyes in this very article. If you read it carefully, when the feds stepped in to conduct raids on a select number of dispensaries, other dispensaries quickly shut their operations down without needing to be told. Prosecuting one person or group serves as a deterrent to others, and the proof is in the pudding. A limited amount of money to bust a few dispenaries has the ripple effect of shutting others down at no cost.
91 Octane,
“california cannot legalize anything that has been banned under Federal Law.”
The state can’t implement such legislation? Evidently the state can and has, so who has the authority to change it? It seems that the DOJ can only arrest and prosecute those who’ve, while acting lawfully per CA state law, are still in violation of the Federal law.
“If you read it carefully, when the feds stepped in to conduct raids on a select number of dispensaries, other dispensaries quickly shut their operations down without needing to be told.”
Assuming that the US DOJ aggressively pursued and prosecuted these individuals regularly, you will likely see a decrease in marijuana dispensaries that now operate legally under CA law. This would of course come at a cost, in terms on funds and resources, which I’m guessing the US DOJ isn’t willing to expend long-term. I would posit that they couldn’t afford to pursue the medical marijuana dispensaries with such zeal.
“Furthermore, your claim that prohibition of pot doesn’t work is pure hogwash…”
Won’t many of the dispensaries open up shop again down the line? Let us assume that these selective raids and prosecutions continue, thereby eliminating marijuana dispensaries from the state. Will that successfully eliminate the “problem:” marijuana use, cultivation and/or sale in CA and the crime that is directly linked to the “black market?”
Are the people who were going to dispensaries to purchase marijuana (or a majority of them) going to stop purchasing marijuana all together once all the dispensaries are closed? Is it more likely that they will seek this product through some other purveyor?
It sounds like you are asserting that this story suggests enforcement (ie prohibition) works—see how quickly other dispensaries closed down? While others argue that prohibition of marijuana is futile (not to mention costly) in that it will not successfully weed out users (there’s quite a demand) of the illicit product and with the criminalization of this product we’ve created serious problems (ie the loss of life, not just gang members, and increased violence due to the effects of the “black market.”)
ERM
“Let’s face it, it was always about the legalization of drugs.”
No, Elaine, it was about the legalization of one drug, marijuana And the California law was about the legalization of one drug for specific medicinal uses. Has this lead to people asking for and getting prescriptions for marijuana for dubious indications? Absolutely! Does this mean that there are not cancer patients and other patients with wasting diseases who do not benefit from other drugs who do benefit from inhaled or ingested marijuana. Absolutely not ! To deny these patients a drug that benefits them while allowing prescription of the much more addictive and destructive opiates such as OxyContin is arbitrary, short sighted, uninformed, discrimatory and just plain wrong. To say nothing of allowing alcohol and tobacco, both many times more addictive and dangerous than marijuana to remain legal with the inherent hypocrisy, makes a mockery of this federal law.
“THey are getting it for things as simple as headaches or backaches…”
Which are symptoms that cannot be treated/alleviated through the use of marijuana? Ever had a debilitating and vomit-inducing migraine? People suffering from chronic headaches and back pain are prescribed pain killers (that would otherwise be illegal to posses if not for the perscription), right? People faking illness, pain, etc. in order to obtain perscription nacrotics, or medicinal marijuana, are violating the laws of this state.
Is there a stipulation in the law that states only those with terminal illnesses may legally purchase and ingest marijuana for medicinal purposes?
” Is here a stipulation in the law that states only those with terminal illnesses may legally purchase and ingest mariguana for medicinal purposes?”
No, however, I do believe that marijuana is unique in California in that it is the only drug of which I am aware for
which what are essentially single drug boutiques with a clientele that not infrequently lies about or exaggerates their symptoms in order to obtain prescriptions from doctors who do little more than sit and sign prescriptions all day with no attempt to help the patients solve their medical problems, or for that matter even attempt to determine if they truly have a problem or not. This I know from direct knowledge of individuals who obtain marijuana in this fashion. Are there doctors who prescribe narcotics in this fashion also ?
Of course. Are there any that prescribe in these kind of single drug “boutique” settings ? Not of which I am aware. If anyone knows otherwise, I stand corrected and would appreciate your input.
“The state can’t implement such legislation? Evidently the state can and has, so who has the authority to change it? It seems that the DOJ can only arrest and prosecute those who’ve, while acting lawfully per CA state law, are still in violation of the Federal law.”
just because a state passes the law, does not make it legitimate. It is clearly illegitimate, because people can and are being indicted for having marijuana dispensaries, medical or not. CA cannot say we only recognize the federal ban on pot for non-medical purposes, and that is what the Govt has made perfectly clear. I’m sorry but you cannot declare marijuana use legitimate for any purpose just because you want to, nor can the state. And we are seeing that reality unfold before our very eyes.
I’m not going to entertain all aspects of your argument concerning prohibition, but what bothers me is you only seem to want to examine the costs of enforcing anti-drug laws, as if costs are not borne to society by those who would use legal dope. We already found out that since having alcohol legal, 50% of all traffic deaths are alcohol related. Now imagine cheap legal weed users behind the wheel… how much do you think that will cost?
“People faking illness, pain, etc. in order to obtain perscription nacrotics, or medicinal marijuana, are violating the laws of this state. “
Not only that but people fake illness and pain to get legal prescription medication that is far more powerful than marijuana
[quote]No, Elaine, it was about the legalization of one drug, [/quote]
I disagree – the proponents of this law have stated publicly their hope was this would be the first step towards legalizing drugs.
[quote]We already found out that since having alcohol legal, 50% of all traffic deaths are alcohol related. Now imagine cheap legal weed users behind the wheel… how much do you think that will cost? [/quote]
Well said!
“I disagree – the proponents of this law have stated publicly their hope was this would be the first step towards legalizing drugs.”
I think that’s a narrow view. First, we could probably eliminate most laws on this basis – that some of the proponents wish to go further than most of the people are willing to go.
Second, just because some proponents wish to go further does not mean the current law is a bad one.
[quote]Second, just because some proponents wish to go further does not mean the current law is a bad one.[/quote]
“Some” proponents? LOL Secondly, the current law is a bad one IMO… and I voted for the dratted thing, foolishly… never again…
“”Some” proponents? LOL”
So you think all of the 55% of the people who voted for it really want to legalize marijuana?
91 Octane wrote,
“california cannot legalize anything that has been banned under Federal Law. It is also clear, CA cannot authorize Marijuana for medical purposes, let alone for general use.”
“just because a state passes the law, does not make it legitimate. It is clearly illegitimate, because people can and are being indicted for having marijuana dispensaries, medical or not.”
As I said, clearly this state (and others to some extent) could and did. You have not proven that it CAN’T. The law still stands in the state of CA. Until the law is overturned, abolished, etc., it’s still on the books as legal for those dispensaries to operate in accordance with state law. Why can’t the Federal govt. eliminate all state laws that have legalized medicinal marijuana?
It is true, however, that the law is not respected by the US DOJ, despite the claims by Eric Holder/Pres Obama’s to cease the raids and respect state law, as it violates Federal law. Are states not allowed to pass laws that are more lenient than the laws/punishments required on the Federal level?
Possession of any amount of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one-year incarceration and a $1,000 minimum fine, Federally. Possession in CA of one once or less of marijuana is a civil infraction (ie not a criminal offense), which requires that the person pay a $100 fine and make no court appearances. I suppose this law is illegitimate as well?
“CA cannot say we only recognize the federal ban on pot for non-medical purposes,”
Effective Jan 1st, 2011, hasn’t CA doesn’t quite recognize the Federal law re: possession…civil infraction for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana (CA State Senate Bill 1449).
“I’m not going to entertain all aspects of your argument concerning prohibition…”
Not so much of an argument as my attempt to understand your point in juxtaposition to others. You stated the fact that a raid resulted in an unspecified number of dispensaries closing as strong evidence prohibition works. I don’t know that closing down dispensaries in CA, even if forever, really lessens or eliminates the purported problems associated with marijuana use, cultivation and/or sale. I don’t think it’s accurate to assert, as you did, that these recent raids prove that prohibition “works.”
Sure, there is a cause and effect with regard to raids and successful prosecutions decreasing the number of medicinal marijuana dispensaries in operation, at least in the short-term. The US DOJ would have to ratchet their efforts up quite a bit, which would be a significant operational shift, and I wonder if that’s a realistic expectation.
“but what bothers me is you only seem to want to examine the costs of enforcing anti-drug laws, as if costs are not borne to society by those who would use legal dope.”
Actually, I mention that a major concern with criminalization of marijuana is the violence inherent in criminal organizations/persons who profit an estimated billions (if not tens of billions) per year illegally.
Much violence and loss of life (not just “bad guys”) is associated with the illegal drug trade, of which marijuana is a large component. The argument is that by legalizing marijuana, this would reduce a significant amount of residual crime (ie not just cultivation and sale) and decrease the power/influence of these organizations/individual within our communities. This doesn’t take into consideration the horrors taking place in Mexico and the tragic losses of life (again, not just “bad guys”) associated with the illegal drug trade there.
Another argument is that we will not have to spend large sums of money fighting a war (against marijuana) that has not seen its efforts decrease the use/demand of marijuana. Is that the point of laws that criminalize marijuana, rid society of this drug/its users? If legalized, regulated and taxed, it could bring in revenue and put the bad guys out of business or hit them pretty hard.
cont.
“We already found out that since having alcohol legal, 50% of all traffic deaths are alcohol related. Now imagine cheap legal weed users behind the wheel… how much do you think that will cost?”
Costs in terms of life? I don’t know.
What percentage of traffic deaths are attributed to driving while under the influence of marijuana alone? The study below found that 40% of Americans admitted to using marijuana at some point and tens of millions admit to using the drug within the year. It seems there are plenty of Americans using the drug or have done so in the past. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/quicktables/quickoptions.do;jsessionid=57C8EC8B045596070ABFF99D12A87B96.)
Also, what do you assume the increase in marijuana use will be, if legalized? If you could find out what percentage of auto deaths are the result of marijuana alone and factor in how many more people will likely be using once legalized, you might be able to figure out something.
Just checking briefly online, I found this on the NIDA site:
“Studies conducted in several localities have found that approximately 4 to 14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient in marijuana.”
http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/driving.html
It’s not very specific, 4-14 percent? But the problem with “tested positive” is the fact that a positive test for THC doesn’t prove that one was actually under the influence at the time of the accident or shortly thereafter. THC can remain in one’s system for weeks and even beyond one month after using marijuana dependent on certain factors. Another issue, the above doesn’t specify as to whether or not the 4-14% were also drunk or under the influence of other drugs at the time of the accidents.
[quote]So you think all of the 55% of the people who voted for it really want to legalize marijuana?[/quote]
I think many of the avid proponents of the medical marijuana law had in mind it would be the first step towards legalizing drugs…