Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Monday, May 2, 2011

Is the Drug Prosecution Landscape Actually Changing?

Posted by on Mon, May 2, 2011 at 12:06 PM

It's natural to assume that the US Department of Justice is clamping down on drug enforcement when federal agents are suddenly raiding medical-marijuana dispensaries in Spokane and federal prosecutors are saying that state employees could be prosecuted for issuing licenses to marijuana dispensaries. Gregoire on Friday excused her veto of a state medical-marijuana bill—a measure to regulate dispensaries, license cultivation, and protect patients from arrest—by saying, "The landscape is changing."

I asked the DOJ's Seattle office if policies or practices for medical marijuana were different now—that is, different from a 2009 policy that says feds won't focus on people in "clear and unambiguous" compliance with state marijuana laws. Spokeswoman Emily Langlie pointed to statement last month from US Attorney Jenny Durkan, who said, "The position of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Washington has not changed."

Similarly, the ACLU of Washington's Alison Holcomb says, "Until we start to see dispensary owners who are in compliance with state dispensary laws being arrested and prosecuted, it is baseless to claim that the landscape is changing."

What's up then—why the letter that says feds could prosecute state employees? "USA Attorneys Durkan and Ormsby responded to a request for information from Governor Gregoire," says Langlie. "But for a variety of reasons we cannot respond to questions about what enforcement acts we might or might not take under various hypotheticals. The statement makes clear that our priorities do not include prosecuting truly ill people or their doctors for using marijuana to lessen their suffering, as state law permits."

So what does it mean if the landscape is, in fact, remaining the same? The raids can continue—because Gregoire refused to bring the dispensaries within "clear and unambiguous" compliance with state law.

 

Comments (9) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Will in Seattle 1
The reality is that Christine's actions have made us more of a front in the shifting border of the War on MJ, when if she had just signed it, it would have shifted over to Idaho.

Kind of sad, really. Hope it's worth it to her, what she did to our state.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on May 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM
2
Dominic, you got to see that the ONLY place the issue will be truly solved is the United States Supreme Court. The Federal Government still considers marijuana to be as bad as PCP and crack cocaine. They don't even recognize the legitimacy of marijuana used for medicinal purposes. Marijuana is considered a Schedule 1 drug which means it has no medical uses. The extremely hopeful news that you failed to report likely as a result of your countdown posting hissy fit is that our Governor intends to lead a colilition of 14 other Governors who are in charge of States that allow medical marijuana to get the Federal Government to reclassify marijuana to Schedule 2 - legitimizing marijuana for medical use and throughly undermining the Federal Government's case for stuff like raids on dispensaries. This reclassification could be one of the greatest victories for medical marijuana on the Federal level ever.

As of this moment, right now, our United States Federal Government considers marijuana distribution a crime. Our new law would not have changed that. I don't like what our Governor did, but I understand why she did. Maybe I'm totally naive but maybe she really did perceive a threat to State employees and really was following her heart on this one. Or she's a corrupt liar trolling for a new job. Whatever.

Blame Obama? Sure I guess. Yeah I'm sure he could just sign an executive order and call off the dogs and maybe after killing bin Laden he will have that kind of political capital but expect major backlash if Obama goes "soft on crime" before 2012. I don't think he can politically afford to NOT start raiding dispensaries. THEY ARE ILLEGAL.

Sounds like Gregoire would rather see The State of California v. The United States of America than the State of Washington.
More...
Posted by Solar System on May 2, 2011 at 1:01 PM
3
Long story short she punted the risk to the citizens (who should be aware that going into the business of marijuana production and distrubution is an illegal thing to do in the eyes of the Federal Government and would have continued to be even if she hadn't vetoed a thing) and not the State. Was that the morally correct thing to do? Probably not. Was that the legally correct thing to do? Remains to be seen but I think that's what she was betting on here.
Posted by Solar System on May 2, 2011 at 1:08 PM
Will in Seattle 4
Nah, she just wants a cush job and sold us out to get it.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on May 2, 2011 at 2:11 PM
5
I bet she did it while wringing her hands together too. Her veto pen slowly swooshing across the sections she knew would lead to patients being thrown in jail because that stuff gets her off. "Eeeeexcelllent..." she muttered slowly under her breath. "I'm gonna have a job and those little monsters are gonna be in jail where they belong." Then she ate a live baby.
Posted by Solar System on May 2, 2011 at 3:02 PM
6
@2

i don't believe your model of the process of progressive change is accurate. it isn't about waiting for the supreme court to do this or the federal government to change the law. the government is inherently reactionary, so at every level of interaction w/ it there will be resistance. that is the landscape upon which this will play out. under these scenarios, waiting for the supreme court, or the federal government is the equivalent of waiting for failure. they will never change the laws (or rulings) wo/ overwhelming external pressure. laws like the one that gregoire vetoed are exactly the kinds of pressure required to ever get the federal government on board. and if anyone should be taking those steps it is washington state where 85% of the population supports medical marijuana. instead of doing the right & necessary thing, gregoire is allowing her citizens to be arrested & imprisoned. her argument that she is protecting state workers is completely & totally fatuous at best, and at worst, is the ultimate in cynical careerism.
Posted by philosophy school dropout on May 2, 2011 at 3:12 PM
7
I understand where you're coming from on that but I just don't agree. Our law would not have changed Federal law. Right now States are allowing the production and distrubution of medical marijuana operating under what amounts to a handshake agreement with the Federal Government. The Feds have said they wouldn't be coming down on States operating within their own laws but they still have every right to meddle in our business which includes Federal prosecution. I repeat - the sections vetoed would not have changed that fact.

If the Feds are getting ready to start exercising their rights and raiding and prosecuting, which they very well may be given that so much of "medical marijuana" is actually just the black market getting gray. States are then going to have to defend the rights of these business owners and it will be decided in court. The Federal laws won't change by local legal pressure alone. It just won't.

The Federal Government has three branches. This Federal issue will be decided in one of them. I think the Supreme Court is most likely.
Posted by Solar System on May 2, 2011 at 4:01 PM
8
@7

i don't really feel that you engaged w/ my argument. i acknowledge that our laws will not change federal laws. that's not my point at all. my point is that if the federal laws are ever going to change it will not happen wo/ tons of pressure, much (if not all) of which will come from state laws that conflict w/ federal laws. it is not about state laws changing federal laws. it is about pressure being placed upon the federal government until it can no longer sustain its policies in the face of overwhelming public & state opposition. i maintain what i said originally... sitting back & waiting for the federal government to change its mind is sitting back & waiting for failure.
Posted by philosophy school dropout on May 2, 2011 at 5:15 PM
9
So then how does it happen?

You think The Supreme Court won't be the place...so will it be the President or Congress that buckles under the pressure? What kind of political landscape do you envision whereby this would actually happen without at least one major victory in the Court?

Do you really see Congress rewriting the laws just because States keep breaking them?

This "pressure" you keep talking about will not just magically change the mind of the Federal Government. It's going to take a huge legal battle. I'm not advocating sitting back and doing nothing. I'm trying to be as realistic as possible concerning this situation though.

Gregoire didn't want to risk getting State employees involved in that fight.the handshake agreement between the States and Feds was not enough protection for them and I can appreciate that fact.

This fight is not over. Our Governor says she intends on fighting on this issue and I believe her. Again, having marijuana rescheduled would be an enormous victory and right in line with the kind of pressure you're talking about.

Disagreeing with what she did is fine, even given my arguments I'd say there's a lot to disagree with. But don't characterize her as some calculating job seeking monster just because she chose a different route for this fight then you wanted her to.
Posted by Solar System on May 3, 2011 at 9:08 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy