Chris Goldstein 10/19/09
This is truly an historic day for the issue of safe cannabis access in America. It is the first order issued by any White House Administration in support of patient’s rights and upholding the existing programs in place through ballot initiative or legislation. The wording also seems to follow some of the existing language in the de-prioritization ordinances in place around the nation.
New Jersey is the next state that has a serious chance to have a medical marijuana program. State legislation is in the final phase right now and needs your support. More information about medical marijuana in NJ
The full memo was released today at:
http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/192
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
[...] legislation in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The guests were asked to weigh in on the recent Department of Justice memo regarding medical cannabis. Host Larry Kane, whose most recent book focused on Beatle John Lennon, [...]
the Drug Czar is Required by Law to Lie
Most people know that the “drug czar” — the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) — is an advocate for the government position regarding the drug war. But not everyone knows that he and his office are mandated to tell lies as part of their Congressional authorization.
According to Title VII Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998: H11225:
Responsibilities. –The Director– [...]
(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that–
is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;
Now, let’s take as a simple example, the issue of medical marijuana. If the government finds that marijuana Has “currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” or “accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision,” then by law, marijuana cannot remain in Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act, which would immediately legalize it for medical purposes.
But by law, the drug czar must oppose any attempt to legalize the use (in any form).
Therefore, despite the fact that there is extensive evidence of medical marijuana’s safety and effectiveness (including the fact that even the federal government supplies it to patients), and clearly the drug czar would know about all this information, he is required by law to lie about it.
The job description also means that since he must oppose any attempt to legalize, he has no choice but declare that the drug war is working, that legalization would fail, etc., regardless of any… facts.
On April 2, 2003, Congressman Ron Paul wrote a letter to the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) asking for an investigation into ONDCP lobbying activities and their dissemination of “misleading information” (a polite euphemism for “lying”)
The GAO responded (pdf):
Finally, apart from considerations of whether any particular law has been violated, you have asked whether the Deputy Director’s letter disseminated misleading information in connection with statements relating to the debate over legalization of marijuana. [...]
ONDCP is specifically charged with the responsibility for “taking such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use” of certain controlled substances such as marijuana —- a responsibility which logically could include the making of advocacy statements in opposition to legalization efforts. The Deputy Director’s statements about marijuana are thus within the statutory role assigned to ONDCP. Given this role, we do not see a need to examine the accuracy of the Deputy Director’s individual statements in detail.
Translation: Since lying is in the job description of the ONDCP, there’s no point in bothering to see whether they’re telling the truth.
Keep in mind that this requirement to avoid the truth if it interferes with the mission of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy is not limited to the current drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, or most recently, John Walters.
Unless the law changes, every future drug czar, even if appointed by a President who solidly supports reform measures, will be constrained by the same job description defined by Congress.
(One may also wonder, of course, if the nature of the job attracts the type of person who perversely enjoys the power of lying to the country.)
Turning this travesty around requires more than the right person for the job. The offending phrases must be struck from the authorizing language (or perhaps a future President will simply not bother to appoint a new czar).
Given the frequency that the drug czar is quoted in the press, either much of the media is not aware that he and his staff are required to lie, or they simply feel obligated to print what they say despite the falsehoods.
After all, don’t all politicians lie some of the time? Yes, but who else is actually required to do so by law?
Lie (verb)
: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
: to create a false or misleading impression
The ONDCP staff lies all the time (and specific examples abound all over the web), but not all lies are mere simple statements. One of the most noxious lies (and a common type of lie used by drug warriors) is the intent to deceive through the use of conjoined statements. Here’s an example of the last drug czar lying to me in an Ask the White House session.
Actually Pete, you’ve got the question exactly backwards. Marijuana is a much bigger part of the American addiction problem than most people – teens or adults – realize. There are now more teens going into treatment for marijuana dependency than for all other drugs combined.
Note the combination of the two sentences. Marijuana is a bigger addition problem than we realize — there are more teens going into treatment… This is a specific intent to deceive, since the drug czar knows that the increase of teens in treatment for marijuana has nothing to do with addiction, and everything to do with an increase in governmental referrals. But by placing the two statements together, he attempts to convince me of the lie.
Here’s another example of the conjoined statement lie:
But marijuana is far from “harmless” — it is pernicious. Parents are often unaware that today’s marijuana is different from that of a generation ago, with potency levels 10 to 20 times stronger than the marijuana with which they were familiar.
Here’s another common ONDCP example:
“Quite a few people think that smoking pot is less likely to cause cancer than a regular cigarette,” reads the ad. “You may even have heard some parents say they’d rather their kid smoked a little pot than get hooked on cigarettes. Wrong, and wrong again,” it continues. “One joint can deliver four times as much cancer-causing tar as one cigarette.” According to ONDCP drug czar John Walters, the idea behind the ads is to “give parents some hard facts that they can use to have informed conversations with their kids about the negative consequences of marijuana. …”
Sometimes they’ll talk about “carcinogens.” Same idea. The intent is to deceive — to convince people that marijuana causes cancer — something they know is not true, so they fall back on the deception. The lie.
New drug czar Gil Kerlikowske seems not to even bother trying to hide it. It’s almost as though he doesn’t care. Note his comments in California where the fact of marijuana’s medicinal capability is quite fully accepted.
“Legalization is not in the president’s vocabulary, and it’s not in mine,” he said. [...]
“Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit,” Kerlikowske said in downtown Fresno …
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-czar-required/