U.S. to yield marijuana jurisdiction to states

[palmspringsbum]

U.S. to yield marijuana jurisdiction to states

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, February 27, 2009


(02-26) 20:00 PST San Francisco -- U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is sending strong signals that President Obama - who as a candidate said states should be allowed to make their own rules on medical marijuana - will end raids on pot dispensaries in California.

Asked at a Washington news conference Wednesday about Drug Enforcement Administration raids in California since Obama took office last month, Holder said the administration has changed its policy.

"What the president said during the campaign, you'll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we'll be doing here in law enforcement," he said. "What he said during the campaign is now American policy."

Bill Piper, national affairs director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a marijuana advocacy group, said the statement is encouraging.

"I think it definitely signals that Obama is moving in a new direction, that it means what he said on the campaign trail that marijuana should be treated as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue," he said.

Piper said Obama has also indicated he will drop the federal government's long-standing opposition to health officials' needle-exchange programs for drug users.

During one campaign appearance, Obama recalled that his mother had died of cancer and said he saw no difference between doctor-prescribed morphine and marijuana as pain relievers. He told an interviewer in March that it was "entirely appropriate" for a state to legalize the medical use of marijuana "with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors."

After the federal Drug Enforcement Agency raided a marijuana dispensary at South Lake Tahoe on Jan. 22, two days after Obama's inauguration, and four others in the Los Angeles area on Feb. 2, White House spokesman Nick Schapiro responded to advocacy groups' protests by noting that Obama had not yet appointed his drug policy team.

"The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws" and expects his appointees to follow that policy, Schapiro said.

The federal government has fought state medicinal pot laws since Californians voted in 1996 to repeal criminal penalties for medical use of marijuana.

President Bill Clinton's administration won a Supreme Court case, originating in Oakland, that allowed federal authorities to shut down nonprofit organizations that supplied medical marijuana to their members. Clinton's Justice Department was thwarted by federal courts in an attempt to punish California doctors who recommended marijuana to their patients.

President George W. Bush's administration went further, raiding medical marijuana growers and clinics, prosecuting suppliers under federal drug laws after winning another Supreme Court case and pressuring commercial property owners to evict marijuana dispensaries by threatening legal action.

The Bush administration also blocked a University of Massachusetts researcher's attempt to grow marijuana for studies of its medical properties. Piper, of the Drug Policy Alliance, said he hopes Obama will reverse that position.

"If you removed the obstacles to research," he said, "in 10 to 15 years, marijuana will be available in pharmacies."
<small>
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle</small>

[palmspringsbum]

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - Page updated at 02:51 PM

White House nominates Kerlikowske as drug czar
By Jennifer Sullivan and Steve Miletich

Seattle Times staff reporters

<table class=posttable align=right><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/kerlikowske_gil.jpg alt="Gil Kerlikowske" title="Gil Kerlikowske"></td></tr></table>The White House today announced the nomination of Seattle police Chief Gil Kerlikowske as head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, putting him in position to become the nation's so-called drug czar.

With Kerlikowske at his side, Vice President Joseph Biden made the announcement during a ceremony in the Executive Office Building next door to the White House.

"There is no one more qualified to take on this job than the chief," Biden said.

Biden said Kerlikowske would oversee a comprehensive effort to tackle the nation's drug problems, weaving together law enforcement, prevention and treatment programs.

One focus will be the increasingly violent Mexican drug wars, the vice president said.

Kerlikowske, whose nomination is subject to U.S. Senate confirmation, said he would seek to bring a "seamless" approach to drug issues, telling the gathering, "There is much work to be done."

The administration will remove the job's Cabinet designation — reversing an elevation of the office under President George W. Bush — although one administration official said Kerlikowske would have "full access and a direct line to the president and the vice president."

Kerlikowske is widely expected among drug-reform advocates to bring moderate positions to the job, balancing traditional law enforcement efforts against drug trafficking with support for court programs that steer drug users into treatment and tolerance for needle-exchange programs and medical marijuana laws.

Kerlikowske, 59, who has led the Seattle Police Department for more than eight years, told the department's top commanders recently that he expected to leave to take a top federal position.

Mayor Greg Nickels said he will announce the interim chief on Monday. Seattle Deputy Chief John Diaz has emerged as front-runner, according to a City Hall source.

As for finding a permanent replacement, the mayor said he will look for "the best talent out there."

"At the end of the day, it wouldn't surprise me if the best talent out there is from inside the department," Nickels said.

Nickels said Kerlikowske let him know early about the drug czar position, and that he tried to convince Kerlikowske to stay. In the end, Nickels said, he believed Kerlikowske wanted to serve in a more policymaking position.

King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg praised the nomination, saying, "Chief Kerlikowske will bring an important perspective to the job as drug czar. As a police chief, he is in a credible position to say that America's struggle to attack both the supply and demand side of drugs cannot be won by law enforcement alone."

Satterberg said the job will "take a balanced approach that includes more emphasis on drug treatment both in the criminal justice system and upon demand in the community. Then the resources of the federal government need to be aimed at securing the borders from major drug importers, and keeping the violence of the Mexican drug trade out of our country."

Seattle City Councilman Tim Burgess, chair of the council's public-safety committee, also lauded the nomination.

"Traditional drug enforcement methods aimed at first-time and casual users do not work. New approaches are needed. Chief Kerlikowske will lead this policy debate at the national level quite effectively," Burgess said.

Seattle City Attorney Tom Carr called Kerlikowske's appointment "a loss for Seattle but a great gain for the country."

"Having had the privilege of serving with him the last seven years, I believe that he will bring his experience, education, judgment and common sense to the seemingly intractable drug problem in our country," Carr said.

Before today's announcement of Kerlikowske's nomination, The Washington Post reported that concerns surfaced recently when Kerlikowske's stepson from a previous marriage, Jeffrey Kerlikowske, was arrested last week for a parole violation in Broward County, Fla.

The younger Kerlikowske has a criminal record that includes arrests for marijuana possession and distribution and was released from prison for battery in March 2008, according to the Florida Department of Corrections.

In his remarks today, Kerlikowske referred to struggles in his own family with drug abuse.

Kerlikowske, who was appointed Seattle chief in 2000 by then-Mayor Paul Schell, had worked the previous two years as deputy director of the Justice Department's community-oriented policing division during the Clinton administration.

Sources said Kerlikowske established ties in Washington, D.C., and has strong relationships with Biden and U.S. attorney general Eric Holder, who served as deputy attorney general during the Clinton years.

Kerlikowske began his career as a street cop in St. Petersburg, Fla., in 1972 and went on to serve as chief in two Florida cities, Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie.

He led the Buffalo, N.Y., department in the 1990s, and left there for the deputy-director position in the Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

In Seattle, Kerlikowske won credit for stabilizing the Police Department after the stormy departure of Norm Stamper as chief in the wake of the 1999 World Trade Organization riots, as well as the department's initial failure to unearth a detective's alleged theft of money at a crime scene.

Crime rates dipped during his time as chief, reaching historic lows in recent years.

But his tenure has at times been rocky, marked by controversy over allegations that he was too soft when it came to disciplining officers in misconduct cases.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, when asked last month about Kerlikowske's possible departure, said "it would be important that we have a strong interim chief quickly and then we take our time and look at a permanent selection so we make sure we make the right choice."

Councilmember Nick Licata, who serves on the public-safety committee, said last month he would like to see someone from inside the department given serious consideration for both the interim and permanent jobs if Kerlikowske were to leave.

Kerlikowske's possible role in shaping drug policy for the Obama administration was applauded last month by local medical-marijuana advocates.

In 2003, Kerlikowske opposed a city ballot measure, approved by voters, to make marijuana possession the lowest law-enforcement priority, saying it would create confusion.

But in doing so, he noted that arresting people for possessing marijuana for personal use was already not a priority.

Joanna McKee, co-founder and director of Green Cross Patient Co-Op, a medical-marijuana patient-advocacy group, said Kerlikowske knows the difference between cracking down on the illegal abuse of drugs and allowing the responsible use of marijuana.

Douglas Hiatt, a Seattle attorney and advocate for medical-marijuana patients, said Kerlikowske would be a vast improvement over past drug czars, who he said used the office to carry out the so-called "war on drugs."

President Obama has looked to the Seattle area for three appointments.

Along with nominating Kerlikowske, the Obama administration has tapped King County Executive Ron Sims for deputy secretary of Housing and Urban Development and former Gov. Gary Locke for Commerce secretary.
<small>
Seattle Times staff reporter Emily Heffter contributed to this report.

Jennifer Sullivan: jensullivan@seattletimes.com or 360-236-8267.

Steve Miletich: smiletich@seattletimes.com or 206-464-3302

Copyright © 2009 The Seattle Times Company
</small>

[palmspringsbum]

Posted March 11, 2009 | 01:15 PM (EST)

Obama Nominating Seattle Police Chief as Drug Czar

The Huffington Post
Ethan Nadleman


According to the Washington Post President Obama is set to nominate Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske as Drug Czar today. The Post also reports that the Obama administration will remove the position's Cabinet-level status -- overturning an elevation of the office under President George W. Bush. The Post says the decision to nominate him was delayed over the last month as information of drug arrests involving his stepson emerged.

While I'm disappointed that President Obama has nominated a police chief instead of a major public health advocate as drug czar, I'm cautiously optimistic that Kerlikowske will support President Obama's drug policy reform agenda.

What gives me hope is the fact that Seattle has been at the cutting edge of harm reduction and other drug policy reform developments in the United States over the last decade. The city's syringe exchange programs are well established and harm reduction is well integrated in Seattle's approach to local drug policy. Marijuana has been legal in Washington State for medical purposes for a decade. In 2003, Seattle voters passed a ballot initiative making marijuana arrests the lowest law enforcement priority. And the King County Bar Association has demonstrated national leadership in exploring alternatives to current prohibitionist policies.

While Kerlikowske has not spoken out in favor of any of these reforms, he is clearly familiar with them and has not been a forceful opponent. Given the high regard in which he is held by other police chiefs around the country, Kerlikowske has the potential to provide much needed national leadership in implementing the commitments that Barack Obama made during the campaign. He also surely recognizes that substance abuse or run-ins with the law can touch anyone, including his own family. He will hopefully advocate for treatment instead of incarceration for nonviolent drug law offenders.

As a presidential candidate, Senator Obama said the 'war on drugs is an utter failure' and that he believes in 'shifting the paradigm, shifting the model, so that we focus more on a public health approach.' He also called for eliminating the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity, repealing the ban on federal funding for syringe exchange programs to reduce HIV/AIDS, and stopping the U.S. Justice Department from undermining state medical marijuana laws. The Drug Policy Alliance will do everything in our power to ensure that Kerlikowske is thoroughly vetted at his confirmation hearings, and held accountable to the President's commitments and standards.

<small>Ethan Nadelmann is the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance</small>

[palmspringsbum]

The Toronto Star

A fresh approach in American war on drugs

<span class="postbigbold">Obama's end to raids on medical marijuana likely to reignite debate on decriminalization</span>

March 21, 2009
MITCH POTTER
WASHINGTON BUREAU

<table align="right" width="200" class="posttable"><tr><td class="postcell"><span class="postbold">14</span>
Estimated annual cost, in billions, of U.S. government efforts to eradicate the illicit drug trade.

<span class="postbold">1.4</span>
Billions spent between 1998 and 2006 in advertising aimed at preventing teens from smoking pot.

<span class="postbold">4,000</span>
Rise, in percentage, in the number of Americans who have used marijuana at least once since the drug was prohibited in 1937.

<span class="postbold">872,000</span>
Number of Americans arrested each year for marijuana offences. Of those, an average of 40,000 are jailed at an estimated cost of $1 billion annually.

<span class="postbold">40</span>
Per cent of Americans believed to have used marijuana one or more times. That equates to approximately 100 million people.

<span class="postbold">7,000</span>
Estimated number of drug-related murders in Mexico since the beginning of 2008, where cartels battle for control of a U.S. illicit drugs market worth $25 billion.

– Mitch Potter

<hr class="postrule">

<span class=postbold>SOME KEY DATES IN AMERICA'S CENTURY-OLD DRUG PROBLEM</span>

1906 Pure Food and Drug Act becomes law. Before its enactment, it was possible to buy, in stores or by mail order, medicines containing morphine, cocaine or heroin.

1914 Harrison Narcotic Act, considered the foundation of U.S. drug laws in the 20th century, controls sale of opium and cocaine.

1936 Reefer Madness, an exploitation film about the dangers of marijuana, is released. Motion Picture Association of America bans showing narcotics in movies.

1937 U.S. passes the Marijuana Tax Act limiting possession of marijuana to those who pay excise tax for medical and industrial use.

1951-1956 Federal laws set mandatory sentences for drug-related offences. Marijuana possession carries a minimum of two to 10 years and a fine up to $20,000.

1973 U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency is created by president Richard Nixon. In New York, adoption of the so-called Rockefeller drug laws prescribes sentences of those convicted of selling two ounces or possessing four ounces of narcotics to a minimum of 15 years in prison, giving the state the distinction of having the toughest laws of its kind in the entire United States.

1982 U.S. first lady Nancy Reagan responds to schoolgirl's question about what to do when offered drugs: "Just say no."

1986 Ronald Reagan signs the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which includes mandatory sentences for drug-related offences and raises the penalties for marijuana possession and dealing.

1989 George H.W. Bush declares "War on Drugs."

2009 U.S. President Barack Obama nominates Gil Kerlikowske to direct the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Kerlikowske is Seattle's police chief but has a progressive reputation on several drug-related matters, including needle-exchange programs and marijuana possession laws.


<small>Sources: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime; PBS; Reuters; Schaffer Library of Drug Policy</small>
</td></tr></table>WASHINGTON – Wars rarely end at the first hint of truce. But when the Obama administration quietly announced this week it will halt federal raids against dispensers of medical marijuana, advocates of drug policy reform found themselves in a tickertape mood.

Could this be Armistice Day for America's decades-long war on drugs? Not quite. Not yet, at least.

But the new government's reversal of the Bush-era's zero-tolerance on pot comes amid a confluence of signals that America may be nearing a turning point in its approach to prohibition. Exit "reefer madness" and enter a more reasoned debate on what works, with the goal of targeting deadly cartels who today place drugs in the hands of American children with greater ease than ever before.

With the U.S. economy in shambles and its banking systems on life support, people on all sides of the great drug debate agree on this much: the last thing America needs right now is to get stoned.

Yet stoned it is, in increasingly grim numbers, despite the world's most expensive sustained effort to use the full weight of law enforcement, prisons and foreign policy to staunch illegal drugs.

American demand today is estimated to be worth as much as $25 billion, a reality that has shredded Mexico's ability to impose sovereignty along its northern border, where rampant drug violence claims 100 lives a week.

"This awful reality is forcing us toward a debate that for the past couple of decades we just couldn't have because America's official drug policy was controlled by wild-eyed ideologues," said Dan Bernath, spokesperson for the Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington-based reform lobby group.

"But attitudes toward marijuana law reform have changed, even if policy hasn't. The opposition today is dwindling down to an ideological fringe rooted in a cultural war that doesn't really matter to people any more. And now, with a new administration, we find ourselves on the cusp of what we hope is going to be a reasoned, fact-based debate."

The best evidence of changing attitudes is the sheer fact of Barack Obama's ascendance. America now has a president who readily admits to having not only smoked marijuana but actually having inhaled it in a period of misspent youth before finding God and the woman of his dreams.

That places him in the company of an estimated 40 per cent of Americans, or 100 million people, who tell pollsters they have tried the drug at least once. Analysts say it never became an election issue simply because in today's America – where 13 states sanction medical marijuana – it was not going to move votes one way or another.

"Opinions have evolved. So many Americans have used marijuana that they are now kind of immune to the fear mongering intoning against its evils," said author Glenn Greenwald, prominent civil rights lawyer and frequent contributor to Salon.com.

Greenwald knows firsthand how the U.S. debate is opening up. In two weeks he will appear at the Washington-based Cato Institute to present a 50-page analysis on the effects of drug decriminalization in Portugal, which in 2001 became the first EU member state to halt criminal penalties for marijuana, cocaine and heroin.

"The biggest surprise for me about the investigation in Portugal is that eight years after the fact there now is a consensus that crosses ideological lines. It has worked so well that nobody is arguing for the policy to be reversed," Greenwald told the Toronto Star.

"It is a hot-button issue in every society and it was in Portugal in 2001, when they changed the laws. But the results are pretty clear: there has been no huge increase in usage. Money has been freed up for treatment, and at the same time lots of addicts have been able to get help because they are no longer terrified of being thrown into prison if they identified themselves as drug users with a problem."

Greenwald, however, is under no illusions the Portuguese approach could easily be adapted to America. Resistance to drug law reform in the U.S., he points out, has long been a bipartisan condition held dear by significant portions of Democrats and Republicans alike.

"The emotion surrounding America's drug war is very deeply entrenched, and the irrationality that has sustained it for so long is very difficult to uproot. I truly believe the unquestioned premise – that changing the laws will create a spike in usage – is a myth. But even as attitudes change, myths take time to break down," he said.

"Yet I do believe the space is opening up now to debate the issue based on empirical analysis, based on what works and what doesn't. We owe it to ourselves to consider the results in Portugal as part of a reasoned debate."

The Obama administration has yet to fully articulate its policies on illicit drugs, though the president has hinted he intends to tackle the problem from both a public health and law enforcement perspective.

But advocates of a more progressive approach take heart in the appointment of former Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske as Obama's nominee for drug czar. When Seattle citizens voted in 2003 to make marijuana prosecution the lowest law enforcement priority, Kerlikowske's police force acted accordingly, enabling the city to champion the use of the public health system rather than criminal justice to address problems caused by illegal drugs.

"So far the new drug czar is an unknown quantity, but his record in Seattle shows Kerlikowske does not approach marijuana from an ideological point of view. The city was able to take a new approach, respecting the wishes of the people it was serving, and that's all we've ever wanted at a federal level," said the MPP's Bernath.

Washington was conspicuously silent this week after Attorney General Eric Holder announced the feds will no longer raid medical marijuana dispensaries that comply with state law.

"It is a bit difficult for many conservatives to get worked up about it, since so many believe that states should be able to decide for themselves. And that is essentially what the Obama administration is saying – if the dispensary complies with state law, the state has spoken," said Bernath.

Peter Reuter, a professor of criminology at University of Maryland and a supporter of drug criminalization laws, noted: "We've had drug-using presidents before. But the great change now is that Obama is honest about it.

"Obama's response when he was asked whether he had inhaled was perfect: `I rather thought that was the point.' He is not apologizing. He doesn't have Bill Clinton's guilty conscience. This is a president who is not afraid to talk about it."

Reuter expects Obama's candour will help breathe new life into the stale drug war debate. But rather than a wholesale redrafting of legislation, he believes the new administration may have a better chance of success at the judicial level.

"One of the questions is: why do we have such long sentences for drug offences? It is very difficult these days to find law enforcement people who disagree. We have large numbers of people, particularly black males, in jail right now for long stretches, longer than is reasonable or efficient. It might make sense for Obama to begin there, at a federal level, to see what can be done."

Underpinning the entire debate, meanwhile, is money. With every dollar of federal spending now subject to a line-by-line review, advocates for drug law reform are renewing the argument for a rerouting of billions from drug war funding into addiction treatment.

Two recent studies by academics at Harvard and Virginia's George Mason University suggest the U.S. government could see a windfall of anywhere from $14 to $40 billion annually through decriminalization of marijuana. The figures combine law enforcement savings and potential marijuana tax revenues.

"The argument is a bit similar to the situation during prohibition of alcohol in the 1930s, when the Great Depression was forcing everyone to look at expenditures and the government accepted that the alcohol policies were no longer affordable," said Bernath.

"No matter what happens, the marijuana industry is never going to be as big as the alcohol industry. And it would be disingenuous to argue it could be some kind of silver bullet for today's economy. But every billion counts, does it not?"

Greenwald, however, observes that the money argument cuts both ways, pointing to the "range of vested interests" that are making money from the drug war.

"There may be few more grotesque wastes of money than the drug war. But the industries that have sprung up around it are enormous and lucrative and powerful," he said.

"Decriminalization would be a huge blow to the American prison industry, which is the largest in the world. Lots of defence companies and paramilitary firms would suffer greatly. They all have a strong interest in maintaining the drug war and they will not just go quietly."

However the debate evolves, the United States can proceed confident the rest of the world will be watching. Whatever lessons are to be drawn from beyond its borders, U.S. drug policy is ultimately expected to dominate policy beyond.

"The United States has a history of blocking reforms elsewhere. There are other countries, especially in Europe, that are ready to take more practical measures, especially when it comes to marijuana policy," said Bernath.

"There is no question America will continue to be the leader. What we're all looking for now is the most reasoned, highest quality debate to decide where we go from here."

[palmspringsbum]

Community Policing Defines Nominee to Lead Drug Office
<span class="postbigbold">As Seattle Police Chief, Kerlikowske Is Known for Pragmatism</span>

By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; Page A03
The Washington Post

Ten months after R. Gil Kerlikowske became Seattle's police chief, two of his officers arrived at the home of JoAnna McKee, where she ran a co-op giving medical marijuana to patients and teaching them to grow their own. Neighbors, the police told her, had been complaining. Soon, a "cease and desist" order was tacked to her door.

But instead of shutting down the Green Cross Patient Co-Op, Kerlikowske's director of police-community partnerships made a suggestion: Move it from her West Seattle house to a commercial area. She found a nearby storefront, and under Washington state's medical marijuana law, people could once again bring doctors' orders to get relief from pain. "The police could have come in here like gangbusters," McKee said. "But they didn't. It was a case of let's see whether we can work this out so everybody could get what they want."

That episode the summer of 2001 typifies the approach to illegal drugs that Kerlikowske, nominated by President Obama to lead the White House Office of Drug Control Policy, has displayed during nearly nine years as Seattle's top law enforcement officer. In a city with greater tolerance for drugs than much of the United States, he has seldom bucked the prevailing local sentiment. Seldom, though, has he been out front.

In his 20s, he worked as a scraggly-haired undercover narcotics cop in his native Florida, trying to get users and dealers off the streets. He has an adopted son with a history of addiction and crimes. Years after others in Seattle's legal community began pushing for it, he has been talking lately about alternatives to drug arrests.

According to legal and community leaders in Seattle familiar with his work, his views are in sync with the drug policies Obama has said he will pursue: a reorientation away from the Bush administration's intense focus on curbing the supply of illegal drugs and toward greater emphasis on preventing and treating addiction. As drug policy director, he would oversee a staff of more than 100 and a $440 million budget. In particular, Kerlikowske has supported King County's drug court, one of the most active in the country, which gives people arrested on drug charges a chance at treatment rather than jail.

Yet in Seattle and three other cities where he has been chief, community policing -- not drug policy -- has defined Kerlikowske's career. The word "drugs" is not in a list of accomplishments on the police chief's Web site. When word began spreading last month that he might be chosen for the White House job, Bruce Chamberlin, a friend and admirer since both were police chiefs in Upstate New York, called to congratulate him. "He was studying up on all kinds of things," Chamberlin said, "because he felt he had a way to go to get up to speed."

Kerlikowske, 59, is, people who know him say, intellectual, a relatively soft-spoken figure who shows up at countless community meetings day and night. Most of all, "the chief is pragmatic," said state Rep. Roger Goodman (D), who is a consultant to the King County Bar Association's drug policy project, which advocates for marijuana to be regulated and taxed.

In 2003, Seattle residents placed on the ballot an initiative to make marijuana possession the Police Department's lowest priority. John P. Walters, the Bush administration's drug policy director, flew out to lobby aggressively against the initiative. Kerlikowske opposed it, too, but more mildly. The law was needless, he argued, because his officers already deemphasized marijuana arrests. It passed anyway.

"We believe it speaks to the man's integrity that after it became law, he chose to follow it," said a statement issued following Kerlikowske's nomination by the producers of Seattle Hempfest, a two-day "protestival" that bills itself as the world's largest gathering to support legalizing marijuana. City police are assigned to the event, where people smoke openly, but arrests are rare.

Growing up in Fort Myers, Fla., Kerlikowske was drawn to law enforcement early. In high school, he worked part time for the local sheriff's department, fingerprinting prisoners and photographing crime scenes, according to a White House official familiar with his background. His mother worked for a judge, and he met officers and detectives when he visited her after school. He entered the Army and became a member of the military police, providing security to the presidential helicopter while Richard M. Nixon was in the White House.

In Florida, he joined the St. Petersburg Police Department and became a detective quickly. His police partner in vice and narcotics, Hal Robbins, said they made drug buys and arrests. "We talked about the fact it's an issue that's so large you can't ever hope to arrest your way out of it. So you are looking at . . . treatment, prevention and enforcement."

Kerlikowske has made no secret that he has seen drug's damaging effects firsthand. He adopted his first wife's son, Jeffrey, at age 2. Jeffrey Kerlikowske, now 39, dropped out of high school, moved out of the house and has been arrested repeatedly on drug and other charges since he was 18, police records show. The father and son have not been in touch since 1995, sources said.

Kerlikowske struck his friends as ambitious. He moved from St. Petersburg to run two smaller police departments on Florida's east coast, and in 1994 he became Buffalo's police commissioner. Chamberlin, who recently had become chief in nearby Cheektowaga, N.Y., remembers feeling as if he was "no longer out there like the Lone Ranger" when Kerlikowske arrived with his talk of community relationships. His first year in Buffalo, the two of them visited local newspapers and television stations and would phone in when they liked or disliked a story.

Kerlikowske became a familiar figure, riding around Buffalo's neighborhoods on a bicycle. One snowy Christmas Day, he was walking off Christmas dinner with his wife when he noticed a young man knock over a woman and run off with her purse, Chamberlin said. The chief stopped a passing snowplow, asked the driver to pursue the thief and arrested him.

He spent two years in the Clinton administration's Justice Department as deputy director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing.

He arrived in Seattle in 2000, following a chief who had left under pressure after notorious riots the year before at World Trade Organization meetings there. Two years ago, Kerlikowske became the center of controversy himself, when a citizens report on police accountability concluded that he had been too soft, at times, on officers accused of misconduct. Others said the city's rules were at fault.

"Without a lot of fanfare or hoopla, Gil has made clear that, as far as the police are concerned, they are really to give attention to the prevention-rehabilitation side of things, as well as the enforcement side of things," said Hubert Locke, a retired University of Washington professor of public affairs.

From soon after he arrived, Kerlikowske has attended meetings of the King County Drug Court's policymaking committee himself, rather than sending a representative, as chiefs before him had done. He did not oppose when the court expanded eligibility from people arrested on possession charges to ones dealing small amounts of drugs, said Mary Taylor, the court's program manager.

The year after he arrived, public defenders began to challenge the department's long-standing pattern of drug arrests by seeking to dismiss certain criminal cases on the grounds that officers arrested minorities on such charges more often than whites. Two years ago, when the City Council approved money for experiments on alternatives to arrests, Kerlikowske did not oppose the move, recalled Lisa Daugaard, deputy director of the Defenders Association, a nonprofit public defense law firm. Still, she said, "it was not incorporated into the department's own vision of how it was going to approach drug enforcement."

But starting last summer, Daugaard said, people in the community began to hear the chief talking about a new approach, directing commanders in the department to meet with social service groups about ways to rechannel police efforts from arresting people to getting them help. "This was," she said, "before the November election."

<small>Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report. </small>

[palmspringsbum]

Time Magazine | Sunday, Mar. 29, 2009

In California Marijuana Truce, a Legal Gray Area
By Alison Stateman / Los Angeles

Marijuana advocates were not the only ones who were overjoyed when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed that he was ending federal raids on medical-marijuana facilities unless they were in violation of both state and federal laws. In budget-strapped California, for one, taxpayers are grateful. There, the fed crackdowns, which had continued despite the end of the state's own raids, got in the way of upwards of $100 million in revenue from medical-marijuana sales taxes in 2007, according to Americans for Safe Access (ASA), an advocacy group for prescription pot.

The federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is estimated to have spent more than $10 million from 2005 to 2007 on raids on California dispensaries alone. (Twelve other states have legalized medical marijuana.) Legal costs are almost impossible to calculate in the Golden State. "I suspect it's well above $10 million, and that doesn't even take into account the fee for the time it's taking me to defend these cases. The government doesn't have to pay for that, but it's certainly an expense," says Joe Elford, ASA staff attorney. "It's the beginning of the end, hopefully, and it will save the taxpayers millions if not tens of millions of dollars." He estimates that $500,000 is spent on the prosecution and incarceration of each individual facing charges. (See pictures of classic Hollywood stoner cinema.)

However, though enforcement on the state and federal level may now be virtually the same in the affected states, a large legal gray area remains. "They've only begun to scratch the surface on this," says Dale Gieringer, California coordinator for NORML, a group lobbying to legalize marijuana. "They're going to have to change the whole treatment of marijuana under federal law because you can't just have a law lying around and say, 'Well, we're just not going to enforce it in this case,' and leave it like that. If they don't change the law, there are going to be issues for years to come."

The problem is clearly evidenced by the cases of Charles C. Lynch and 30 to 40 other individuals who faced or were incarcerated for medical-marijuana-related charges before the Obama Administration relaxed its policy. Lynch was convicted in federal court in 2008 on five counts, including distributing marijuana through his dispensary, Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers, in Morro Bay, Calif. Lynch, 47, who believed he was complying with state laws regarding his clinic — he had a business license for his dispensary, a nursery license for the marijuana plants he cultivated and the blessing of city officials, including the mayor — was charged with violating both state and federal laws. Lynch's defense team was not allowed to inform the jury that medical marijuana was legal in the state or that Lynch was compliant with state law. (See if pot is good for you.)

On March 23, the judge postponed Lynch's sentencing until April 30 and requested that prosecutors provide a written clarification from the Justice Department on the Obama Administration's position that federal agents target marijuana distributors only if they violate both state and federal laws. Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. State Attorney's Office for the Central District of California, said they were reviewing the judge's request but declined further comment.

Lynch's attorney, Reuven Cohen, a deputy federal defender, said, "The bottom line is this: If this case were brought today, Charlie would not be prosecuted, period. And anyone who says otherwise is either completely lying or does not know the truth or the facts. If the people at main justice are provided with full and accurate information, they will dismiss this case. If they are serious about what [Holder] said — in other words, that someone had to be in violation of federal and state law — then they will dismiss the case." (Read "An American Pastime: Smoking Pot.")

The prosecution paints a more complex picture, contending that Lynch's operation was pervaded by marijuana transactions outside the store by his employees and customers; they claim evidence shows that, though Lynch may not have known of such transactions, "the atmosphere and example that defendant set, and that his employees and customers followed, was not one of strict compliance with the law but rather a casual, almost carnival-like attitude toward the use and distribution of marijuana." One of the most serious federal charges leveled against Lynch was that he sold the drug to more than 250 minors, which is defined as under 18 under state law and under 21 under federal laws. (Read "Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy?")

Furthermore, the feds can still cite the double requirement — violation of both state and federal laws — to justify a raid. Just a week after Holder's announcement, the DEA raided Emmalyn's California Cannabis Clinic in San Francisco, claiming it violated both sets of laws. Evidence used to justify the raid is currently sealed and not available to the public. However, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a source in the city government said the state law that was broken was a sales-tax violation. Emmalyn's attorney and a former district attorney for the city, Terence Hallinan, says, "They've done everything they're supposed to do. They haven't done any of the things they're accused of. Here a week after the Attorney General makes a statement, they go ahead and make this raid. I think it's just a slap in Obama's face."

Marijuana advocates believe that what happens with Lynch will be a bellwether for other individuals facing charges related to medical marijuana. "All of these people are in a wild state of flux that Mr. Holder and Mr. Obama have placed them in," says Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML. "[Lynch] is the case that will probably inform society where we're going to go on this because he got arrested under the Bush Administration. He was a Main Street medical distributor who enjoyed the support of the town council, the mayor — quintessential local acceptance. His case has been caught up for months now in the [transition between the two] Administrations. These defendants are caught in this sort of Alice in Wonderland of medical marijuana, between the states and Federal Government."

While the Obama Administration cannot reverse the charges against Lynch, St. Pierre says it has great latitude over his sentencing. (State prosecutors have recommended the minimum mandatory sentence of five years in federal prison.) "They could commute his sentence. They can pardon his sentence," says St. Pierre. "That will be very demonstrative as to what this new Administration will do about medical marijuana. They can influence it. They can dial back what had been overt federal opposition to medical marijuana and allow, as they should have from the beginning, local mores and values to dictate who is going to run afoul of the law."

Read an interview with Tommy Chong.

Cast your votes for the TIME 100.

[palmspringsbum]

Obama disses online community: pisses off Bill Maher with town hall cannabis comments

Shawn E. Hamilton | examiner.com | April 10, 1:15 AM


When I first interviewed Assemblymember Tom Ammiano’s press representative, Quintin Mecke, about Assembly Bill 390—the measure that would legalize, regulate and tax marijuana in California, the spokesman seemed optimistic that the Obama administration represents a real possibility that the United States is poised to adopt more humane and reasonable drug policies.

“If you see Attorney General Holder’s comments and the federal government with a clear shift about its approach—first to medical marijuana—that certainly leaves the door open for consideration about marijuana in general,” Mecke told me, but at the time I voiced skepticism about Obama’s intentions. Isn’t Obama going out of his way to cater to a conservative crowd?

Mecke responded by recalling Obama’s accounts on the campaign trail of his mother who had used cannabis while undergoing treatment for cancer. The implication was that since he had personal experience with marijuana’s efficacy, he and his administration would be more sympathetic, which is reasonable.

Coincidentally, however, this March 25 interview concluded just a few hours before the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) raided Emmalyn’s cannabis dispensary in San Francisco—Ammiano’s district, in what immediately struck me as a warning to the legislator.

The next day I talked with Ammiano at the capitol and asked him if he thought the raid in his district had been a warning shot. He said the raid was a warning to him and also the Obama administration. “I think it has to do with the AG’s edict about no more raids on medical marijuana dispensaries,” he said, citing the DEA’s “institutional” mentality. “They’re little vigilantes in my mind.”

“Polls show here in California that medical marijuana is accepted, and the polling that we’re getting around the recreational use being taxed and regulated is very positive, so doing this (raid) is just kind of rubbing people’s noses in it, going against the will of the people,” Ammiano said. “It’s a little paramilitary and a little scary.”

So how much control does Ammiano think Obama has?

“That’s going to be the test. Is it a policy? Is it a federal law? In my mind I think he has a lot of control, and you want to mess with the president and his delegates then you take on a lot more than a law in California that allows for medical marijuana or a potential law that allows for its taxation and regulation,” he said.

That same night, Obama held a virtual online town hall meeting during which he dissed the online community—hardly a fringe group— when he answered a question about legalizing marijuana. His response was patronizing and condescending, exemplifying neatly the suspicions I had expressed to Quintin Mecke the previous day.

Bill Maher called Obama's comments "infuriating" saying, "For Obama to mock, 'I don't know what's going on the Internet,' well excuse me…the Internet is America now. That sounded like John McCain."

It did sound like John McCain.

Mecke had pointed out in our interview that the Clinton Administration had “fought against medical marijuana tooth and nail” during his administration—an interesting position for someone widely reputed to have indulged himself although his technique has been widely criticized (not inhaling is considered wasteful).

In examining that prospect I ran across an interesting article by American cultural and political commentator, Virginia Postrel, who was attempting to explain why the “Clintonistas [were] going crazy” over ballot propositions in Arizona and California that would allow sick people legal access to marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation. She said that the propositions subverted the War on Drugs by threatening to expose its propaganda and attacked the favorite argument for big, technocratic government: health and safety.

“They (the propositions) dare to suggest that health is, for the most part, an individual, private matter; that safety depends on how each person weighs relative dangers; and that knowledge about both is not the sole possession of centralized bureaucrats,” Postrel said. “The initiatives explode the most beloved premises of paternalistic Progressivism.”

Is Obama’s position change we can believe in, or is it simply Big Brother with a kinder, gentler face?

[palmspringsbum]

Fakes Left, Goes Right

<span class="postbigbold">Obama's Crossover Dribble on Marijuana Policy </span>

Counterpunch | By FRED GARDNER | April 10/12, 2009

Executive summary: Obama fakes left, goes right. Passes to Holder at the head of the key. Holder holds the ball, looking for a cutter. Looks in to Brown posting up, then swings it over to Russoniello on the wing. The Warriors veteran finds Obama behind a screen from Holder. Obama launches from beyond the arc... Off back iron. Rebound, Sibelius.

It has been business as usual for the Drug Enforcement Administration since Barack Obama took office. Attorney General Eric Holder has decreed a "policy change," and some PC (as in Pro-Cannabis) lobbyists and lawyers have hailed that "policy change" as a major victory. But try explaining it to workers at any of the six dispensaries that have been raided by the Obama-era DEA.

"I would have let them in if they would have showed me something," said John W., 35, who came to the front door of Emmalyn's on Howard St. in San Francisco on the afternoon of March 25. "They were dressed kind of like me," according to John, who was garbed in a football jersey. "Once they actually got in I could see that they had bulletproof vests that said DEA on the back. But I couldn't see that from the door. The only thing I could see was a person with a gun. I asked for a search warrant or a badge but they didn't show me either one, they just battered down the gate.

"They rushed in and pushed us down -me, two or three patients, a lady who doesn't work here anymore, and Rose [a beautiful woman of 30 who was behind the counter when your correspondent visited Emmalyn’s a week after the raid]. There were between 15 and 20, all DEA. The man lying next to me didn't put up any kind of struggle but he kept saying, 'I'm a patient.' And 'Why are you doing this?'"

"They never asked me no questions. They just went through the whole place and took the medicine we had and the little bit of money." Some heavy machinery was deployed to rip out a safe that had been bolted to the floor. The agents hauled it off, past a passionate group of protesters on the sidwalk chanting, "This medicine is marijuana. Listen to Obama." Did they know that Obama has said no such thing?

"To me it was robbery," John said of the raid. "That's how it feels. I was scared at first but then I just started listening to their conversations. They were in such a good mood, like they'd just won a championship or something. Then when they didn't find very much they started saying, 'There should be more. There should be more.' We tried to tell them that upstairs was just a tenant who had nothing to do with us but they went up there and broke in and actually took their stereo equipment out of their apartment.

"A lot of their conversation was really sarcastic. Like poking shots at us and the whole movement. 'You guys are pretending that dope is medicine...' It was really disturbing but I just stayed quiet. They saw a headline on the West Coast Leaf (a tabloid that covers the medical marijuana movement/industry) about Obama ending the raids and that gave them a big laugh: 'We didn't get that memo.'

"One agent asked me if I had a card. I said yes. He said 'Well, what's wrong with you?' I said "Better than me tell you, I could show you. And I showed him. I have a disease called Blount's Disease. One of the bones in the bottom portion of my leg didn't grow. See, if I stand up straight, you can see how much shorter one of my legs is. (About two-three inches.) He said, 'Well that medicine is not going to help your leg grow.' That's highly disrespectful. But you know, I was like, 'Why am I even debating with this person?'

"I figured that it wasn't the time or the place to tell them the truth. A lot of people come through here. People in wheelchairs, young people in wheelchairs, the handicapped. Different problems. Sometimes people won't have cards, they'll have their letter of recommendation. Even though I try not to read 'em, the information is on there. It makes me feel bad for them: AIDS patients, hepatitis patients, cancer patients. Sometimes people come in here and they just start to cry because they're appreciative that we're here because out of all the medications that they take, this is one that they really get relief from."

The raid was typical in that no arrests were made. Emmalyn's reopened the next day with product lent by a nearby dispensary. Beautiful Rose says, "We wanted to make sure that our patients would be taken care of. That we would be here for them and for everybody."

Cannabis dispensaries tend to serve poor people. Rich people have land in the country, and middle-class people have friends with land in the country.

The raid occurred one week after Eric Holder's statement that DEA would target only dispensaries that violated state as well as federal law. "What state law did they violate?" wonders attorney Brendan Hallinan (Terence's son), who is representing Emmalyn's. "They were permitted by the city. They were in the process of changing their layout to provide wheelchair access. They take pride in their low prices. They were one of the smallest clubs in San Francisco in terms of how many patients they served."

Documents laying out the DEA's case against Emmalyn's are under seal because the investigation is supposedly ongoing. If it turns out that the operators were laundering money or importing BC bud, then dispensaries that don't engage in such practices can continue to believe that the Obama Administration will leave them alone. But if Emmalyn's is charged with nothing more than unpaid taxes -which should provoke a warning from the state board of equalization, not a rip-and-run from DEA- then the terror level will rise back to blood orange, as in the time of Bush.

Don't be surprised if Obama's approval rating begins slipping in California and beyond. Millions of people felt offended when he made light of the marijuana question during his on-line press conference.

<span class="postbigbold">Desperately Seeking Clarification</span>

With acting DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart (a Bush appointee) by his side, Attorney General Holder told reporters March 18 that the Department of Justice would henceforth target "people, organizations, that are growing, cultivating substantial amounts of marijuana and doing so in a way that's inconsistent with federal law and state law." In the week that followed, proceedings in three federal cases were put on hold pending clarification of the supposed "policy change."

In Los Angeles, U.S. District Court Judge George Wu delayed the sentencing of Charles Lynch and asked the U.S. Attorney to provide a written summary of the new DOJ policy. Lynch, who operated a dispensary in Morro Bay, had been convicted on cultivation-for-sale charges. He contended that he was operating legally under California law and with the support of city officials.

In San Jose, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel asked the US Attorney to produce a written version of the new policy, which could affect a case now called Santa Cruz v. Holder. The case stems from the September, 2002 raid on WAMM (The Wo/Man's Alliance for Medical Marijuana). The city and County of Santa Cruz subsequently sued the Attorney General for blocking the implementation of California's medical marijuana law.

In San Francisco, attorney Bill Panzer asked U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer for 30 days to seek an explanation from AG Holder of the reported “policy change.” Panzer represents Ken Hayes in a case dating back to 2002. At the time Hayes was indicted (along with Ed Rosenthal and Rick Watts), he was in Canada, having moved there with his wife and one-year-old son. He remained out of the country until late 2008. Panzer wrote a letter in February and another in March to US Attorney Joseph Russoniello asking how the DOJ “policy change” would affect settlement of the case against Hayes. After getting no reply, Panzer told Judge Breyer that the US Attorney had a conflict of interest because he was pursuing a policy contrary to that of his client, the United States of America. Breyer said he didn’t want to get in the middle of a discussion between the AG and the US Attorney, and gave Panzer his 30-day delay. “Holder already has my letter,” Panzer told PotShots April 9.

<span class="postbigbold">Russoniello: Nothing’s Going to Change</span>

Another attempt to get clarification of current federal policy was made by defense specialist Joe Elford when he and Northern District US Attorney Joe Russoniello debated at Hastings School of Law April 8. Elford recounts:<blockquote class="posttable">"He said their policy didn't change in 1996. He said that they had treated marijuana offenses the same before and after California passed its medical marijuana law. They have a limited budget and so they have to prioritize. His claim was that they've always gone after the bigger dealers who make a lot of money. Which is not completely true...

"He revealed that after Attorney General’s announcement, the four US attorneys in the state met and they decided that nothing was going to change. That the policy would be what it has always been. He said that there would be little likelihood of a legitimate medical marijuana provider -a grower or a dispensary-being prosecuted by the federal authorities so long as people complied with the [state] attorney general's guidelines. He didn't go so far as to say they wouldn't be prosecuted, but he came close to saying that. Which is how Americans for Safe Access feela that Obama's new policy should play out.

"He had his copy of the [state] attorney general's guidelines with highlighted passages. He actually said that of the 300 dispensaries in California are profiteering dispensaries which are making a bunch of money and violate the attorney general’s guidelines... All dispensaries are fair game because they violate state law as well as federal law. That's scary.

“I asked, ‘Who are you to judge what's a violation of state law?’ There's a real problem here —a process problem. A federal agent who is not supposed to be interpreting state law makes a determination that a dispensary is not complying with state law. So then they bust the person and drag them into federal court where state law is not an issue. So this person will never get a jury to pass on whether they violated state law. They will end up getting very severe mandatory minimum sentences.

“It would be good if the U.S. Attorney talked to the [state] attorney general about whether there's a violation of state law before taking down a grower or dispensary. The problem is, they're going to rely on what some rogue cop who doesn't believe in it [California’s medical marijuana law] in the first place says is a violation of state law."</blockquote>Another problem is, what Elford calls "rogue cops" are most cops.

“The audience,” Elford went on, “was less polite than I would have expected from a room full of law students. In response to a student's comment about marijuana being less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes, Russoniello actually interrupted her and said, ‘No, alcohol is more harmful than both of those substances.’ That had a significant number of the students actually jeer him.”

At one point Russoniello put down the medical marijuana industry for not having a self-policing trade association. Elford pointed out that the threat of federal prosecution was an obstacle to forming such an organization. “The dispensaries are trying to self-regulate and impose standards, but you don't know how many people at these meetings are DEA agents posing as operators, so you might be setting yourself up for federal prosecution by trying to organize a trade association.”

The overriding irony is that arch-capitalists like Joe Russoniello –your basic Mean White Man— have to define making a profit as a criminal act in order to take down medical marijuana growers and dispensaries.

Fred Gardner edits O’Shaughnessy’s, the Journal of Cannabis in Clinical Practice. He can be reached at fred@plebesite.com

[palmspringsbum]

Holder's pot policy unclear on old state cases

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

The San Francisco Chronicle | Saturday, April 11, 2009

The owners of a medical marijuana dispensary near Hayward are looking at 15 years in federal prison on charges that might not get them arrested today. The owner of a former Hayward pot co-op faces similar charges that carry at least a five-year term.

They're among as many as two dozen defendants in California who - according to advocacy groups and defense lawyers - are guilty of nothing more than bad timing.

They were charged with growing or distributing marijuana during the administration of President George W. Bush, when federal agents regularly raided pot clubs and suppliers. The administration argued, and federal courts agreed, that California law allowing medical marijuana was no defense to charges of violating the federal ban on the drug.

Their cases were still pending when President Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, announced a new policy on marijuana raids: Federal agents, he said March 18, would target only "those people who violate both federal and state law."

In other words, anyone who was complying with the medical marijuana law in California, or any of the 12 other states with similar laws, would be left alone.

<span class="postbigbold">Unanswered questions</span>

But Holder left two questions unanswered: whether the same rule would apply to defendants who had been charged under the former policy, and who would decide whether marijuana suppliers were violating state law - federal authorities or state and local governments that were already licensing and regulating pot clubs.

So far, those decisions in California have been left to the four regional U.S. attorneys in the state. Their first response came exactly a week after Holder's announcement, when Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided Emmalyn's California Cannabis Clinic on Howard Street in San Francisco, which was operating with a city permit.

No one was arrested, and no charges have been filed. The supervising DEA agent said federal authorities believed the clinic was violating state law but didn't elaborate.

Medical marijuana advocates were outraged.

"The ink's barely dry on the Obama administration's kinder, gentler approach to medical marijuana, and the DEA is up to its old tactics," said Stephen Gutwillig of the Drug Policy Alliance.

<span class="postbigbold">State prohibits profit</span>

But the U.S. attorney in San Francisco, Joseph Russoniello, said he saw no inconsistency between Holder's "sort of offhand comment" and the long-standing practice by federal prosecutors in the Bay Area of targeting traffickers and profiteers.

"We're not interested in people who have a legitimate claim of being compassionate providers," Russoniello told a student audience Wednesday in a forum on medical marijuana at UC Hastings College of the Law.

But he said California's 300 marijuana dispensaries are fair game, because most of them sell pot for profit - and under guidelines announced last August by state Attorney General Jerry Brown, only nonprofit collectives or cooperatives comply with state law.

<span class="postbigbold">Prosecutions move ahead</span>

Although Russoniello wouldn't discuss the Emmalyn's case, his comments indicated that local government approval isn't enough to shield a dispensary from federal enforcement. That's reflected by several cases his office is prosecuting.

One involves the Compassionate Cooperative of Alameda County, whose headquarters in an unincorporated area near Hayward were raided by the DEA in October 2007.

The owners, brothers Winslow and Abraham Norton, had a county permit and had been paying taxes on their multimillion-dollar annual sales, their lawyers said.

The charges against them include drug distribution, money laundering and carrying guns during drug trafficking - firearms held by their licensed security guards, a charge that ratchets up the mandatory minimum sentence to 15 years.

<span class="postbigbold">'Height of arrogance'</span>

The Nortons "went to extraordinary lengths to make sure they violated no state law," said their lawyer, Susan B. Jordan. It's the "height of arrogance," she said, for federal prosecutors to claim the authority to decide whether a dispensary is following California law.

In December 2006, federal agents raided the Local Patients Cooperative in Hayward and said it was a front to sell pot for profit. The dispensary had a city permit but local officials had recently ordered it closed, saying it had more marijuana on the site than the city's rules allowed. The owner, Shon Squier, and the operator, Valerie Herschel, face mandatory sentences of at least five years if convicted.

Dennis Roberts, a lawyer for Squier, said the federal prosecutor had told him the cooperative was violating state law, and he asked which law that might be. "He said, 'You either accept my offer (of a guilty plea) or you'll find out at trial,' " Roberts said.

Another defense lawyer tried to test the new policy in a San Francisco federal court last month. William Panzer asked a judge to remove Russoniello's office from the case of his client, Kenneth Hayes of Petaluma, operator of a San Francisco marijuana club that the DEA raided in 2002.

Panzer said the prosecutor's office had a conflict of interest because Holder's policy would protect someone like Hayes, whose dispensary, the Harm Reduction Center, was complying with the city's rules when it was raided.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer was unmoved.

"Don't drag the court into being the referee or the policeman of the Justice Department," he told Panzer. But Breyer agreed to a 30-day delay to give Panzer time to contact Holder.

<span class="postbigbold">Questions for Holder</span>

Another federal judge, George Wu of Los Angeles, has asked Holder to explain his policy on prosecutions before April 30, when Wu is scheduled to sentence Charles Lynch for distributing marijuana at a Morro Bay dispensary that Lynch said had city approval.

Ideally, medical marijuana advocates say, Holder should tell his prosecutors to leave enforcement of state law up to state and local authorities. At a minimum, said Kris Hermes of Americans for Safe Access, they'd like some clarity.

"We want to work with his administration and get a sensible way to deal with these cases," he said.


E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

[palmspringsbum]

The Justice Blog - 19 Oct 09

Memorandum for Selected United State Attorneys on Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana


October 19th, 2009 Posted by Tracy Russo

Today Attorney General Eric Holder announced formal guidelines for federal prosecutors in states that have enacted laws authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Those guidelines are contained in a memo from Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden which was sent to United States Attorneys this morning.

The text of this memo is provided below for reference. You may also download a PDF version of the memo by clicking, here.

———————————————————————————————-



October 19,2009

MEMORANDUM FOR SELECTED UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

FROM: David W. Ogden, Deputy Attorney General

SUBJECT: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana

This memorandum provides clarification and guidance to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana. These laws vary in their substantive provisions and in the extent of state regulatory oversight, both among the enacting States and among local jurisdictions within those States. Rather than developing different guidelines for every possible variant of state and local law, this memorandum provides uniform guidance to focus federal investigations and prosecutions in these States on core federal enforcement priorities.

The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime and provides a significant source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. One timely example underscores the importance of our efforts to prosecute significant marijuana traffickers: marijuana distribution in the United States remains the single largest source of revenue for the Mexican cartels.

The Department is also committed to making efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources. In general, United States Attorneys are vested with “plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters” within their districts. USAM 9-2.001. In exercising this authority, United States Attorneys are “invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority.” Id. This authority should, of course, be exercised consistent with Department priorities and guidance.

The prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority in the Department’s efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the Department’s investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department’s core enforcement priorities.

Typically, when any of the following characteristics is present, the conduct will not be in clear and unambiguous compliance with applicable state law and may indicate illegal drug trafficking activity of potential federal interest:

• unlawful possession or unlawful use of firearms;
• violence;
• sales to minors;
• financial and marketing activities inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of state law, including evidence of money laundering activity and/or financial gains or excessive amounts of cash inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
• amounts of marijuana inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
• illegal possession or sale of other controlled substances; or
• ties to other criminal enterprises.

Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of factors above is not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal prosecution may be warranted. Accordingly, in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, federal prosecutors are not expected to charge, prove, or otherwise establish any state law violations. Indeed, this memorandum does not alter in any way the Department’s authority to enforce federal law, including laws prohibiting the manufacture, production, distribution, possession, or use of marijuana on federal property. This guidance regarding resource allocation does not “legalize” marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter. Nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law or the absence of one or all of the above factors create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion.

Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution where there is a reasonable basis to believe that compliance with state law is being invoked as a pretext for the production or distribution of marijuana for purposes not authorized by state law. Nor does this guidance preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests.

Your offices should continue to review marijuana cases for prosecution on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the guidance on resource allocation and federal priorities set forth herein, the consideration of requests for federal assistance from state and local law enforcement authorities, and the Principles of Federal Prosecution.

cc: All United States Attorneys

Lanny A. Breuer
Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division

B. Todd Jones
United States Attorney
District of Minnesota
Chair, Attorney General’s Advisory Committee

Michele M. Leonhart
Acting Administrator
Drug Enforcement Administration

H. Marshall Jarrett
Director
Executive Office for United States Attorneys

Kevin L. Perkins
Assistant Director
Criminal Investigative Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation

[palmspringsbum]

The New York Times | October 20, 2009

U.S. Won’t Prosecute in States That Allow Medical Marijuana

By DAVID STOUTWASHINGTON — People who use marijuana for medical purposes and those who distribute it should not face federal prosecution, provided they act according to state law, the Justice Department said on Monday in a directive with political and legal implications.

In a memorandum to federal prosecutors in the 14 states that allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes, the department said it was committed to the “efficient and rational use” of its resources and that going after individuals who were in “clear and unambiguous compliance” with state laws did not meet that standard.

At the same time, the department emphasized that it would continue to pursue those who use the concept of medical marijuana as a ruse for drug trafficking. “Marijuana distribution in the United States remains the single largest source of revenue for the Mexican cartels,” the department said in pledging that prosecuting the makers and sellers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, would remain a “core priority.”

The Justice Department policy statement, foreshadowed since shortly after President Obama took office, was laid out on Monday in an announcement by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who made public a memo from David W. Ogden, the deputy attorney general, to the United States attorneys in the affected states, most notably California.

The announcement formalizes the Obama administration’s departure from the policies of former President George W. Bush, under whose administration federal agents raided medical marijuana distributors that violated federal statutes, even if the distributors appeared to be complying with state laws.

Advocates of medical marijuana say the substance can reduce chronic pain, nausea and other ailments associated with cancer and other serious illnesses. In 1996, California became the first state to make it legal to sell marijuana to people with doctors’ prescriptions. The other states that allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes are Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

“This is a major step forward,” said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project, which supports legalizing the substance. “This change in policy moves the federal government dramatically toward respecting scientific and practical reality.”

The Justice Department indicated that the memo should not be interpreted as legalizing marijuana. “Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion,” the department said.

But there will inevitably be clashes, in political arenas and in courtrooms, over what constitutes “clear and unambiguous compliance” with state laws, and whether marijuana distributors ostensibly in business to provide the substance for medical use are being infiltrated by drug cartels.

Solomon Moore contributed reporting from Los Angeles.

[palmspringsbum]

latimes.com

U.S. backs off medical marijuana policy

<span class="postbigbold">The Obama administration tells federal authorities not to prosecute users and suppliers following state laws, reversing Bush's position.</span>

By Josh Meyer | October 20, 2009
Reporting from Washington

The Obama administration on Monday told federal authorities not to arrest or prosecute medical marijuana users and suppliers who aren't violating local laws, paving the way for some states to allow dispensaries to provide the drug as relief for some maladies.

The Justice Department's guidelines ended months of uncertainty over how far the Obama White House planned to go in reversing the Bush administration's position, which was that federal drug laws should be enforced even in states like California, with medical marijuana laws on the books.

The new guidelines tell prosecutors and federal drug agents they have more important things to do than to arrest people who are obeying state laws that allow some use or sale of medical marijuana.

"It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal," Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement.

Advocates say marijuana helps relieve pain and nausea and stimulates appetite in patients suffering from cancer and some other diseases.

The guidelines clarify what some critics had said was an ambiguous position by the Obama administration, especially in California, where authorities raided numerous clinics and made arrests over the years. Some of those raids followed Obama's inauguration in January, after, as a presidential candidate, he had pledged to stop them.

Holder had telegraphed the change in March.

On Monday, he said the guidelines were adopted, in part, because federal agencies must reserve their limited resources for urgent needs. One priority is countering the violent Mexican drug cartels, which use vast profits from their U.S. marijuana sales to support other criminal activities, the guidelines say.

The Justice Department will continue to prosecute people whose claims of compliance with state and local law conceal operations that are "inconsistent" with the terms, conditions or purposes of those laws, according to Holder and Deputy Atty. Gen. David Ogden.

The guidelines urge authorities to pursue cases involving violence, illegal use of firearms, selling marijuana to minors, excessive financial gains and ties to criminal enterprises.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups welcomed the decision as an important step toward a comprehensive national policy on medical marijuana that will allow states to implement their laws without fear of federal interference.

But many law enforcement advocates, some conservative groups and members of Congress criticized it.

In all, 14 states have medical marijuana laws. But some, such as New Mexico, Rhode Island and Michigan, have been reluctant to create programs lest they be struck down by courts or shut down by federal authorities, said Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU's California-based Drug Law Reform Project.

Boyd said he hoped the new policy would spur local governments with well-established medical marijuana programs to weed out fly-by-night dispensaries that are in it for the huge potential profits.

"The big news outside of California is that this will get the states off the dime," Boyd said.

In California, he said, it would "clarify the line between what is legal and illegal and reduce some of the chaos that exists, and that's a good thing."

But opponents warned of consequences.

"By directing federal law enforcement officers to ignore federal drug laws, the administration is tacitly condoning the use of marijuana in the U.S.," said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.

He said the decision undermined the administration's plan to attack the Mexican drug cartels, which he said were growing marijuana in U.S. national parks and fueling drug-related violence along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Other states that allow marijuana for medical purposes are Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

California is unusual in allowing dispensaries to sell marijuana and advertise their services.

In Los Angeles, however, Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley said last week that he would continue to prosecute dispensaries for over-the-counter sales.

josh.meyer@latimes.com

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

[palmspringsbum]

Will Federal Medical Marijuana Raids Continue?

Jacob Sullum | October 19, 2009 | Reason Hit & Run

While it's good news that the Obama administration is putting its less aggressive approach to medical marijuana in writing (as Nick Gillespie and Peter Suderman noted earlier today), the ambiguity about which forms of cannabis distribution are legal under California law means the policy shift may not amount to much in practice. Today Attorney General Eric Holder is instructing federal prosecutors in the 14 states where the medical use of marijuana is permitted that prosecuting patients, growers, or distributors who are complying with state law is not a good use of Justice Department resources. That stance, which Holder first described in March, fits pretty well with what President Obama said during his campaign. But it can be reversed at any time, and even if it isn't the Drug Enforcement Administration can still participate in raids on medical marijuana dispensaries that local officials consider illegal. In Los Angeles County, as Brian Doherty noted a couple of weeks ago, that category includes pretty much every dispensary, since District Attorney Steve Cooley takes the position that state law does not permit over-the-counter sales. Officials in other jurisdictions hostile to medical marijuana, such as San Diego, can be expected to agree with that interpretation, even though it contradicts Attorney General Jerry Brown's reading of the law. In recent months, the DEA has joined raids initiated by law enforcement officials in L.A. and San Diego. Until the law is clarified by the courts or the legislature, the federal government will have plenty of opportunities to interfere with the distribution of medical marijuana in California, even when it is going to bona fide patients.

Update: The memo (PDF) leaves substantial wiggle room:

<blockquote>As a general matter [you] should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department's core enforcement priorities.</blockquote>

[palmspringsbum]

Medical-pot backers react to new Obama policy

Bob Egelko, the San Francisco Chronicle

Tuesday, October 20, 2009


(10-19) 18:21 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Medical marijuana advocates in California said the Obama administration's announcement of new guidelines for pot prosecutions Monday contained some hopeful signs, but lacked the specifics needed to keep patients and their suppliers out of court.

"It's an extremely welcome rhetorical de-escalation of the federal government's long-standing war on medical marijuana patients," said Stephen Gutwillig, state director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Dale Gieringer, California coordinator of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said the administration's advice to U.S. attorneys that they respect state law - such as California's Proposition 215, the 1996 measure legalizing medicinal use of the drug - was encouraging.

However, he added, "the policy has major loopholes that give prosecutors broad discretion to determine what they think is legal."

A Justice Department memo, sent Monday to federal prosecutors in California and 13 other states whose laws allow medical use of marijuana, provides guidelines to implement the policy Attorney General Eric Holder announced in March: that federal authorities should refrain from arresting or prosecuting people who are complying with their state's laws.

Federal prosecutors should focus on major drug traffickers and networks, rather than on those who "are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws" on medical marijuana, said Deputy Attorney General David Ogden.

But he added some qualifications: Prosecutors can go after those who sell marijuana for profit, a category that federal authorities have commonly invoked in charging growers and sellers of medicinal pot.

San Francisco's U.S. attorney, Joseph Russoniello, asserted in August that most of California's 300 marijuana dispensaries make profits, in violation of state guidelines, and are therefore open to federal prosecution.

Ogden also said the Justice Department would fight any effort by people now charged with marijuana-related crimes in federal court to claim that they were simply following state law. And even those who are clearly complying with a state's law can be investigated and prosecuted, he said, in the pursuit of "important federal interests."

<span class="postbigbold">'Lot of discretion'</span>

"It leaves a lot of discretion up to the U.S. attorneys," said Kris Hermes of Americans for Safe Access, an advocacy group for patients who use marijuana. "We hope that these guidelines rein in rogue prosecutors like Russoniello. There's no guarantee that's going to happen."

Russoniello's office is prosecuting owners of two Hayward-area medical marijuana dispensaries that were licensed by local governments. In March, after Holder's announcement, federal agents raided Emmalyn's California Cannabis Clinic in San Francisco, which had a city permit. No charges were filed.

Russoniello's office referred inquiries Monday to the Justice Department, where spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Ogden's memo was intended to provide "guidance and clarification" to prosecutors and does not change administration policy.

<span class="postbigbold">Judges go easy</span>

Since Holder's announcement, prosecutors have told several federal judges in California that the new policy did not justify leniency for marijuana defendants whose cases originated during President George W. Bush's administration.

Judges have nonetheless imposed lighter sentences than the Justice Department wanted, notably a one-year term for a Central Coast pot club operator for whom prosecutors sought five years.

Although Monday's guidelines, like Holder's earlier statement, do not expressly apply to pending cases, defense lawyers will argue to judges that the Obama administration's memo justifies a break in sentencing, said Joe Elford, lawyer for Americans for Safe Access.

He also predicted that some prisoners would cite the memo in asking President Obama for clemency.

The guidelines don't say how federal authorities would respond if California legalized marijuana for personal use, as proposed in an Assembly bill and several pending initiatives. But Gutwillig, whose organization advocates legalization, said he saw a glimmer of hope.

"The Obama administration has taken a further step today to follow the lead of the states on marijuana policy," he said.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

<i><small>This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle</small></i>