John Conyers wants DEA to stop busting California medical marijuana users
Slate posted a letter from John Conyers Jr., chairman of the House judiciary committee, to the DEA's acting administrator Michele Leonhart about the agency's "dramatically intensified … frequency of paramilitary-style enforcement raids" on legal cannabis users and dispensaries.
Conyers asked for an accounting of the agency's costs for these measures against "individuals who suffer from severe or chronic illness" and for its rationale for threatening landlords of licensed dispensaries with "arrest and forfeiture of their property." Meanwhile, the California State Legislature is considering a measure that would allow state and local law enforcement agencies to refuse cooperation with the DEA.Link
the latest
latest episodes
State's Rights, eh? Didn't we square this away back in 1865? How about Brown vs. Board of Education? Oh! We want federal meddling until it isn't convenient, oh frackin typical.
The comparison to Brown vs. the Board of Education isn't apt; that was about the rights that are guaranteed by the constitution; the constitution however, says nothing about drug (or alcohol) consumption.
Thus the federal gov't is not involved the regulation of alcohol; when I was a kid, states had different drinking ages. The only reason that isn't true today is that the scumbags, er, Republicans in the 80's did an end-run around states rights by refusing to contribute federal money for other things (like roads); if the states didn't bow to federal pressure, they lost funding for things that were in NO WAY associated with the real issue: drinking age.
Now the government seeks to undermine the states at every turn, because that would allow the people to make laws themselves via representative agencies, something the Bushite Plutocracy doesn't have time for... they've been continuously pummeled in Oregon vis~a~vis the assisted-suicide law (you're only allowed to die for Bush's oil buddies, not because you're in immeasurable pain from a terminal illness), and they're doing it in California, as well as any number of unsuspecting places.
It's almost enough to make me throw away my copy of the Constitution ~ almost.
Lanval
"State's Rights, eh? Didn't we square this away back in 1865?"
Sure, if you mean individuals' rights to own human beings as chattel.
"We want federal meddling until it isn't convenient"
Shockingly yes, people who do in fact think that federal intervention is justified in response to acts of treason in defense of violent, racially stratified brutalization of human beings for the economic enrichment of a landed elite, don't necessarily think that such intervention is necessary in response to, you know, sick people smoking pot.
Brown=Increase Rights For Blacks
This=Decrease Rights For Sick
NO COMPARISON
ALL HUMAN RIGHTS ARE UNIVERSAL
END THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ
The problem here isn't state's rights.
The problem is that DEA is blowing tons of government money trying to stop sick people from getting their medicine.
Another aspect of the problem is that non-elected flunkies are enforcing policies, put in place without a democratic vote, in direct contradiction of the expressed wishes of a majority of the voters in the jurisdiction.
Don't care about "State's Rights". No one really care except the right wingers, sorry. It's been a staple of racists masquerading as freedom fighters for decades.
The problem is a fake forever war against a plant that is really an excuse to terrorize citizens at will, and the unstoppable momentum of "moral" madness. No one wants to stop the war else he seem a drug user.
Who will admit that we've been destroying ourselves -and the rest of the free world, for that matter! - for seventy years because some twit convinced us in the early forties that negro musicians would use pot to seduce their white daughters? That WAS the reason given. No one remembers in the United States of Amnesia.
Who's up for a drink? I'll drive!
@ Lanval. I agree with the sentiment, but the comment about Republicans increasing the drinking age in the 80s is more than a bit inaccurate. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was actually headed by Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J. It was actually opposed by most Republicans.
http://www.youthrights.org/legana.php
Wow what a refreshing letter to see from someone in our gov. Well thought out and really covered issues.
Heres my prediction on how the DEA will respond:
Mr, Conyers,
Weed Bad, weed users criminals, imprison all!
How else will we be able to fill our prisons?
Yours truly,
DEA
I am a Californian Medical Marijuana User. Just went today to pick up some "meds". The reality of California's MM laws is that they allow a doctor to provide a recommendation for a patient to use MM if the doctor thinks that it will help them. I'm pretty sure that the doctor who gave me my recommendation (after a 15 minute examination and $100) thinks that marijuana would help pretty much anyone. I officially use MM for my arthritis, which is not severe, but I think it helps. I could be diagnosed with general anxiety disorder and the MM works great for that. It's also great for my occasional insomnia as well.
At my Drs. appointments and when I've purchased meds at dispensaries the majority of the clientele are 20 something males and most people I've seen are not visibly sick (I have seen several obviously sick people). I think that California's MM laws help a lot of really sick people, but I'll admit that I think many, myself included to some extent, do not NEED MM for their ailments. Personally, I think it should be legalized and taxed to death. Either that or alcohol should be criminalized.
Back to the point... I asked the guy working the counter at the dispensary what he thought about the DEA busts. I had heard earlier that they seemed random. His information was that the places that were getting busted were doing shady things. The one that got busted just last week apparently sold a pound out the back door to an undercover agent without a recommendation. (There was also the issue that someone who was high and driving with marijuana purchased from that dispensary hit a CHP officer at a traffic stop. I think the officer was killed and the person stopped was paralyzed but that's a bullshit reason until we start arresting bars and liquor stores who sold drunk driver's their alcohol). There was an article in some paper about some guys from the San Joaquin Valley that were recently convicted. The article indicated that they were making LOTS of money and being very visible with their wealth. I read about another person who did deliveries that got busted. Apparently they kept no records whatsoever.
The good dispensaries are very rigid about verifying recommendations, checking ID's, and keeping records. This was the first time I went to this dispensary and they actually had a computer POS and gave me a printed receipt noting what I had purchased (They also had a notice that their prices included sales tax which they paid to the state). At least this dispensary felt that if they did everything above board they wouldn't get busted. So it may be that DEA is just weeding out the bad guys but they're not telling anyone. As for the letters to landlords. I think that's just a cheap way to get other people to do (what DEA feels is) their job.
It would be interesting to see the response to Congressman Conyers letter. I wonder if that will be public.
Ugly Canuck,
Sentences? Paragraphs? Small letters? If you have a point, please make it with grown-up language instead of slogans.
@#3 anon.
I don't know what you're talking about, as the Civil War, which was in 1865, Y'know back when we "squared states rights" had only very minimally to do with slavery, don't believe the BS they taught us in elementary school, that the civil war was some grand crusade to free the slaves. It was about states deciding for THEMSELVES what was best. Yes slavery did happen to be one of those things the states felt they should decide for themselves, but the primary and chief resaon for the civil war, was states rights, NOT slavery.
Odd, I was taught that the Civil War was fought over conflicting views of the future of capitalism. Maybe there was more than one cause, eh?
Conyers needs to begin impeachment hearings on our steaming pile of a prez and not dilly dally around with this crap. Conyers has a history of making grandiose promises and failing to follow through. I'll believe it when I see it.
Ugly Canuck: WTF does Iraq have to do with medical marijuana? It's people like you that give the anti-war protesters a bad name.
And oh yeah, thanks for shouting at us. Douchebag.
@#6 "Don't care about "State's Rights". No one really care except the right wingers, sorry. It's been a staple of racists masquerading as freedom fighters for decades."
Right. I'll be interested to see how you feel when Roe v Wade is overturned and conservatives start pushing for a federal ban on abortion. Racists like free speech, too, but that doesn't mean we should ditch the 1st Amendment.
State's Rights is an incredibly important concept. There are many, many functions of government that are unworkable at a federal level, but which become useful when administered at a state or local level. What works in Wyoming is not what works in Rhode Island. Also, rather than subjugating rural conservatives in Montana to the same laws as urban liberals in NYC and vice cersa, doesn't it make more sense to let people do their own thing? Wouldn't it help keep some of the highly toxic social issues from popping up in national debates that should be focused on something more meaningful?
Obviously it's a double edged sword, but in general I think people are happiest with most of their laws coming from the local level, where they can have a more direct impact.
FWIW, as I understand it, DEA gets its powers from the Commerce Clause, not from blackmailing states with withheld road funding (though the drinking age thing is true). Any good liberal knows that the Interstate Commerce Clause is NOT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO MESS WITH unless you want to do away with almost everything good that the feds do for us (EPA, FDA, DHHS, etc).
There is talk here and elsewhere about "state's rights." It seems that people are reading this to mean "individual's rights." Since Roe v. Wade was meantioned previously, I'll use that to illustrate why this assumption is completely wrong.
Taken from Wikipedia's Roe v. Wade article, near the end, close to the footnotes:
"Several states have enacted so-called "trigger laws" which "would take effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned." Those states include Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Other states have passed laws to maintain the legality of abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned, and those states include California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada and Washington."
Those laws, which have been on their states books for varying lenghts of time, would come into effect immediately upon the overturning, not after the people who live there now take a vote. Arguably, those laws could be changed again if the issue makes it to the ballots, but what of the rights of the individuals who get outvoted on that personal issue?
How is it better to place the personal situations of individuals in the hands of governments even closer to them than the distant federal one? Talk about having a more direct impact! I am among many who don't want ANY government restriction in our PERSONAL lives, be it state or federal.
Kudos to those states who would still try to uphold the federal ruling that has kept the rights of individuals from being violated instead of pandering to the special interest groups that seek to control the lives of anyone who disagrees with their philosophies.
And kudos to both Conyers and California for defending the rights of individuals by seeking to prevent DEA misuse of taxpayer money. California, in these cases as well as others, is showing that it's a state's duty is to protect individuals' rights, not cater to agendas. Some states, however, would take every opportunity to do just that if given the chance.
There are some issues that should never be on any ballot in the first place, because of the door that it would open for the government(s) to just walk into our private lives and start dictating our personal affairs. I'm not happy that resources are wasted on such petty "crimes" as use of an herb, while those who commit serious offenses aren't able to be properly handled due to the lack of said resources.
This is just one example of how our government needs to change, and be purged of those who are either ineffective mouthpieces for their parties, or are more concerned with making a dollar for themselves than saving the dollars and integrity of the country as a whole. Hopefully Conyers will be setting a precedent for a wiser use of government resources (on any level) that can help to shift funds to places where they're actually needed. I know that's asking a lot, but it has to start somewhere.
I'm sorry, but it's not meddling when the government steps in to straighten out a situation where there is an abuse of power. People elect these officials with the understanding that they'll act in the best interest of their constituents, and a little checking up on them now and then to make sure that taxpayer money isnt being wasted is a good thing.
Much has been said in this thread, so all I can say is, good on Conyers for trying to help sick people. I wish him luck.