Reason Magazine - Topics > Medical Marijuana

Can the 10th Amendment Stop the DEA's Medical Marijuana Raids?

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:32:00 EDT

Last week U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel allowed Californians challenging the Bush administration's medical marijuana policy to proceed with a lawsuit arguing that federal interference in this area violates the 10th Amendment. The plaintiffs, led by the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Santa Cruz County, argued that "the federal government has pursued a policy of threatening and utilizing arrests, forfeitures, criminal prosecutions and other punitive means, all with the purpose of rendering California's medical marijuana laws impossible to implement and with the intent of coercing California and its political subdivisions to enact legislation recriminalizing medical marijuana."

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the federal government's authority to prosecute patients and their caregivers for possessing medical marijuana even when state law permits them to do so. But Fogel ruled that if the plaintiffs could prove the federal government is deliberately undermining California's medical marijuana policy through selecive enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act and other means, they could make a case that it is unconstitutionally "commandeering" the state legislative process. He cited a concurring opinion by Alex Kozinski in a 2002 case where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected the federal government's policy of punishing doctors who recommend marijuana as a medicine by revoking the registration that allows them to prescribe controlled substances. "Much as the federal government may prefer that California keep medical marijuana illegal," Kozinski wrote, "it cannot force the state to do so."

This "commandeering" business is a poor substitute for insisting that the federal government exercise only those powers granted by the Constitution, which do not include prohibiting intrastate cultivation and possession of a disfavored plant. But the 10th Amendment argument could open up enough space to let California and other states tinker at the edges of drug policy. By the time this case is resolved, of course, an Obama administration may already have stopped the DEA's harassment of medical marijuana users and providers. That's assuming he keeps his word. It's worth recalling that George W. Bush promised a federalist approach to medical marijuana when he first ran for president, and that the interference challenged by this lawsuit began not under Bush but under Bill Clinton. Bush's predecessor not only wanted to punish people for distributing medical marijuana but provoked the 9th Circuit's rebuke by seeking to punish doctors for expressing politically incorrect opinions about the drug.

Fogel's ruling is here (PDF).

Can't Let Retailers Make Money Off Sick People

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:34:00 EDT

California Attorney General Jerry Brown, taking a cue from Boston Mayor Thomas Menino (who has resisted medical clinics in drugstores because "allowing retailers to make money off of sick people is wrong"), has decreed that all medical marijuana dispensaries in the state must henceforth operate on a nonprofit basis. Brown hopes his guidelines, which were welcomed by some California activists, will encourage the Drug Enforcement Administration to "back off." But the Marijuana Policy Project's Bruce Mirken observes, "The last I heard, Walgreens isn't a charity." Tell it to Menino.

The Los Angeles Times reports that medical marijuana prices will be "limited to covering overhead and operating expenses." Since operating expenses presumably include paying managers and other employees, that seems to leave some wiggle room.

A few weeks ago I criticized the federal prosecution of Charlie Lynch, a Morro Bay dispensary operator who did well by doing good. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Wait. I guess there is.

Fair-Weather Federalists

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:00:00 EDT

When Owen Beck was 17, doctors amputated his right leg to stop the spread of bone cancer. His parents, desperate to find a drug that would relieve their son's excruciating phantom limb pain, brought him to Charlie Lynch's medical marijuana dispensary in Morro Bay, California, carrying a recommendation from a Stanford University oncologist. The marijuana not only eased the pain but also alleviated the nausea caused by chemotherapy.

Called to testify as a character witness in Lynch's federal marijuana trial, Beck did not get far. When he mentioned his cancer, U.S. District Judge George Wu cut him off and sent him packing. Wu decreed there would be no talk of the symptoms marijuana relieves, no references to California's recognition of marijuana as a medicine, no mention even of the phrase medical marijuana in front of the jury.

In short, there would be no explanation of how Lynch came to operate what prosecutors called a "marijuana store" in downtown Morro Bay for a year, openly serving more than 2,000 customers. Under federal law, which forbids marijuana use for any purpose, all that was irrelevant. So it's hardly surprising that Lynch was convicted last week of five marijuana-related offenses that carry penalties of five to 85 years in prison.

Nor is it surprising that so many self-described conservatives, including Republican presidential candidate John McCain, support the prosecution of people like Charlie Lynch, abandoning their avowed federalist principles because of blind hostility toward a plant they associate with draft-dodging, flag-burning hippies. It's not surprising, but it's shameful.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has raided more than 60 medical marijuana dispensaries in the last two years. Because the deck is stacked against them, dispensary operators facing federal drug charges typically plead guilty.

Lynch instead gambled on a defense known as entrapment by estoppel, which occurs when someone is arrested for actions the government assured him were legal. Before he opened Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers in 2006, Lynch called the DEA to ask about his legal exposure. He says an agent told him he should consult with state and local authorities, which he took to mean he could avoid trouble as long as he complied with state and local law.

It's not hard to see why Lynch believed he was operating a legitimate business. He had the blessing of the Morro Bay Chamber of Commerce and the city council; local officials, including Morro Bay's mayor, posed for pictures at the dispensary's opening; and neither his neighbors nor the city police objected.

At Lynch's trial the DEA denied giving him any sort of green light, or even a yellow one. But the response he says he got from the agency is the response he should have gotten, because under the U.S. Constitution the medical use of marijuana is a local matter.

At one time John McCain seemed to acknowledge as much. In April 2007 he said, "I will let states decide that issue." But he quickly abandoned that position, and this year he said he'd continue the DEA's medical marijuana raids, declaring, "It is a national issue and not a [state] issue." By contrast, McCain's Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, has promised to stop the raids.

McCain's medical marijuana position contradicts his professed allegiance to federalism. "The federal government was intended to have limited scope," he says on his website, vowing to appoint judges who "respect the proper role of local and state governments."

That commitment is inconsistent with reading Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce broadly enough to cover homegrown medical marijuana, as the Supreme Court did in 2005. "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause," Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his dissent, "it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

By supporting the Bush administration's medical marijuana policy, McCain is renouncing such concerns. Worse, his promise to flout the Constitution probably will enhance his appeal among conservatives.

Colbert on Medical Marijuana

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:03:00 EDT

Now Playing at Reason.tv: Why California Medical Marijuana Dispensary Owner Charlie Lynch Was Found Guilty in Federal Court of Selling Drugs

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:29:00 EDT

reason has been reporting on the trial of Charles Lynch, who operated a medical marijuana dispensary in California that was fully legal under state law.

Two days ago, Lynch was found guilty in federal court on five counts of distributing drugs and, if given the maximum sentence, faces an effective life sentence. Read reason's take here.

In this latest reason.tv video, we talk to Lynch's lawyers and the forewoman of the jury to find out precisely how Lynch got convicted and what happens next. It's a disturbing, provocative video that should make even the hardiest drug warrior wonder just what the hell we're doing locking up businessmen who play by the rules and give aid and comfort to sick people. That Lynch's conviction was virtually guaranteed under federal law simply underscores how immoral those laws are.

Previous Lynch trial video updates can be found here and here. reason.tv's documentary short on the case, Raiding California, can be found here.

California Medical Marijuana Dispensary Owner Charlie Lynch Found Guilty in Grotesque Miscarriage of Justice

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:28:00 EDT

Charles Lynch, the owner of a medical marijuana dispensary in Morro Bay, California that was fully compliant with state laws, has been found guilty in federal court of pushing drugs. The grim details, courtesy of The Los Angeles Times:

The owner of a Morro Bay marijuana dispensary was found guilty today in federal court of five counts of distributing drugs.

Charles Lynch, the owner of the dispensary, faces a minimum of five years in prison.

His closely watched trial involved conflicting marijuana laws and went to a federal court jury Monday. Jurors were asked to determine if Lynch was guilty of violating federal drug laws.

During a week-and-a-half-long trial in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, federal prosecutors sought to depict Lynch as a common drug dealer who sold pot to teenagers and carried a backpack stuffed with cash.

Lynch was charged with distributing marijuana, conspiring to distribute marijuana and providing marijuana to people under the age of 21.

Whole news story here.

Lynch is one of the countless casualties of an idiotic and tragically long-running war on drugs. His shop scrupulously followed Golden State laws and when he opened his shop in Morro Bay, local officials attended the ribbon-cutting ceremony. And that kid he provided medical marijuana to? A high school athlete who had lost a leg to cancer and had a prescription from a Stanford-trained doctor (and in any case, Lynch only dealt with the boy's parents). Yes, a common drug dealer.

There's only one good possibility to come out of this verdict: That its manifest injustice and stupidity and inhumanity (to Lynch and his customers) will help spark a long overdue reaction to the drug war and its punishing toll on individuals and basic Constitutional rights.

reason has been covering this story closely. Its import goes beyond drug policy to questions about federalism and whether or not states can truly be laboratories of experimentation and it compounds the awful logic of the Supreme Court's dreadful ruling in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) which invoked the commerce clause in deciding that federal laws overrode state laws when it came to medical marijuana.

Click here for coverage, including video updates featuring key players in the case, of the trial of Lynch.

Click below to watch the Drew Carey Project documentary "Raiding California" that tells the truth about Charlie Lynch.

reason's drug war coverage here.

reason's medical marijuana coverage here.

Drew Carey defends medical marijuana here:

California Appeals Court Upholds Medical Marijuana Cards

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:41:00 EDT

Yesterday a California appeals court rejected a challenge by San Diego and San Bernardino counties to a state law requiring them to issue ID cards for medical marijuana patients. The counties, which have been resisting the state policy allowing medical use of cannabis for years, argued that the Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2003, which established the current ID card system, is pre-empted by the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The court disagreed:

We conclude the identification card laws do not pose a significant impediment to specific federal objectives embodied in the CSA. The purpose of the CSA is to combat recreational drug use, not to regulate a state's medical practices....
Although California's decision to enact statutory exemptions from state criminal prosecution for such persons arguably undermines the goals of or is inconsistent with the CSA—a question we do not decide here—any alleged "obstacle" to the federal goals is presented by those California statutes that create the exemptions, not by the statutes providing a system for rapidly identifying exempt individuals. The identification card statutes impose no significant added obstacle to the purposes of the CSA not otherwise inherent in the provisions of the exemptions that Counties do not have standing to challenge, and we therefore conclude the limited provisions of the MMP that Counties may challenge are not preempted by principles of obstacle preemption.

Note that the decision does not address the question of whether the CSA pre-empts the laws shielding medical marijuana users from state prosecution. In the 2005 decision Gonzales v. Raich, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the power to regulate interstate commerce permits federal prosecution of patients who possess marijuana for medical use, even in states that permit such use. But it did not say the CSA requires states to prosecute them. And the following year, in Gonzales v. Oregon, it ruled that the CSA does not bar states from allowing doctors to prescribe barbiturates for patients with terminal illnesses who want to kill themselves.

Identifying statutory exceptions that permit states to experiment with different drug policies is a poor substitute for the original constitutional design, under which Congress has no authority to override such experiments. But I suppose it's better than nothing. This way, if Congress wants to obliterate the distinction between local and national matters, dictating policy choices that the Constitution reserves to the states, it has to do so explicitly.

The appeals court decision is here (PDF).

[Thanks to Dan Berger at the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project for the tip.]

Charlie Lynch Update

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:12:00 EDT

Over at reason.tv, an update on the trial of Charlie Lynch, the medical marijuana dispensary owner in California on trial this week for violating federal drug laws.

Now Playing at Reason.tv:

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:30:00 EDT

...

Why Smoking Pot Is Like Sex With a 10-Year-Old Girl

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:20:00 EDT

A recent interview with deputy drug czar Scott Burns by the Arcata Eye, a Northern California newspaper, provides some insight into the quality of thought underlying the war on drugs. Asked about "chemotherapy patients who would tell you that [marijuana] is the only thing that suppresses their nausea and gives them an appetite," Burns says:

Anybody can say something makes me feel better anecdotally. And I hear that a lot. "Marijuana is the only thing that makes me feel good." I say you should try crack, because from what I hear, crack cocaine will make you feel really good as well.

Bear in mind that Burns is not talking about people who get doctor's recommendations to take marijuana for something vague and hard to verify like "anxiety and depression." He is talking about cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, and it's indisputable that marijuana helps relieve their nausea and restore their appetites. The Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of THC, marijuana's main active ingredient, for that very purpose, based on controlled, double-blind clinical trials. There are various reasons why some patients prefer smoked (or vaporized) marijuana to the FDA-approved capsules containing synthetic THC, including easier absorption and better control over dosage, and most drug warriors would say those reasons are not strong enough to justify allowing the medical use of marijuana. But to suggest there's no scientific evidence that marijuana is an effective anti-emetic you'd have to be utterly uninformed, egregiously dishonest, or just plain stupid.

I'm not sure which category Burns falls into, but the rest of the interview provides further evidence on that score. Asked how the American tradition of "freedom and self-determination" can be reconciled with "the government telling us what we can ingest and what we can't," Burns says:

On some issues that affect all of us for the good of the order we have to come to some consensus. And not everybody's happy, are they? And every time we don't get to do what we want... I know there are states where they really really like to marry young girls, 12, 11, or 10, and they would argue to you, "How dare the federal government preclude us from engaging in certain activities?" Well, in some instances we just say your, quote, "constitutional rights" and your freedom to do certain things gets trumped by the rest of us who say, "You know that's just not a good idea."

In short, pot smokers should be treated like child rapists. For the good of the order.

[via Paul Armentano at NORML]

Is All Marijuana Use Medical?

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:24:00 EDT

The July 28 issue of The New Yorker includes a subtle, honest, and absorbing account of the gray market created by California's legalization of medical marijuana. Author David Samuels hangs out with a pot-wholesaling buddy for six months and through him meets growers, mules, dispensary operators, and patients. Samuels candidly describes how easy it is to get a doctor's recommendation (he gets one for "anxiety and depression") but at the same time offers reasons to wonder whether that should be considered a problem:

"People are talking about how it's being over-recommended and abused," [a defense attorney specializing in marijuana cases] said. "I mean, big fucking deal. It's not toxic!"...

Like many other dispensary owners I spoke with, Cindy derives particular satisfaction from providing medication to people who suffer from chronic diseases. Although she suspects that there is nothing seriously wrong with many of the young men who come in to buy an eighth of L.A. Confidential, she doesn't regard marijuana as a harmful drug when compared with Xanax, Valium, Prozac, and other pills that are commonly prescribed by physicians to treat vague complaints of anxiety or dysphoria....
Though [a doctor who writes recommendations] was always careful to observe the letter of California state law, he said, "My personal belief is that marijuana is a useful and relatively harmless substance and that adults should be free to choose whether they want to use it or not."

When adults have that freedom, the world that Samuels describes, in which marijuana carries a load of cultural and political baggage that has little to with its intrinsic properties, will no longer exist.

Greg Beato covered California's medical marijuana scene for reason last year.

Charlie Lynch Trial Begins Tuesday

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:15:00 EDT

Charlie Lynch is the owner of a medical marijuana dispensary in Morro Bay, California. Though the business is legal under state law, Lynch was arrested in July of last year for violating federal drug laws. Last month, he was featured in the Drew Carey documentary below. As the video explains, Lynch is facing extra charges for giving medical marijuana to 17-year-old Owen Beck, who used the drug to treat the symptoms of bone cancer.

Lynch faces up to 100 years in prison. His trial begins Tuesday.

Check Lynch's website for more information on his case, including directions to the courthouse where he'll be tried.

Uncle Sam's Patented Marijuana Medicine

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:06:00 EDT

August 1996: Federal drug czar Barry McCaffrey tells the San Francisco Chronicle "there is not a shred of scientific evidence that shows that smoked marijuana is useful or needed," adding, "This is not medicine. This is a cruel hoax."

December 1996: Asked whether there is "any evidence...that marijuana is useful in a medical situation," McCaffrey says, "No, none at all."

February 2001: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services files a patent application for the medical use of cannabinoids, saying they are "useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and
autoimmune diseases," and "are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia."

October 2003: The patent is granted.

April 2006: The Food and Drug Administration says an "evaluation by several Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agencies...concluded that no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use."

July 2008: The Drug Enforcement Administration says "marijuana has no medical value that can't be met more effectively by legal drugs."

What's going on here? The government wants to draw a distinction between whole-plant marijuana, which it insists has "no currently accepted medical use," and marijuana ingredients, including THC and cannabidiol, that have demonstrated medical utility. As drug czar John Walters put it in an "Ask the White House" Q&A last December:

We believe that if there are elements of marijuana that can be applied to modern medicine, they should undergo the same FDA-approval process any other medicine goes through to make sure it's safe and effective. In absence of that approval, the Federal position is clear: the smoked form of medical marijuana is against Federal law and we will continue to enforce the law.

According to Walters, while it is emphatically forbidden, and not at all helpful, to smoke, vaporize, or eat cannabis as a medicine, it may be acceptable to take isolated cannabinoids as a medicine once they're approved by the FDA, assuming you have a prescription. The FDA already has approved THC (in capsule form) under the brand name Marinol, and it is considering approval of Sativex, an oral cannabis extract spray. At the same time, the government does not want people to believe that anything good could possibly come from cannabis, even when it has successfully argued that very point in its own a patent application.

[Thanks to NORML's Paul Armentano for the patent tip.]

Unlimited Pot

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Fri, 30 May 2008 16:28:00 EDT

Last week a California appeals court ruled that a statutory limit on the amount of marijuana a patient may possess for medical use is unconstitutional. A 2004 law set a limit of eight ounces of dried marijuana, plus six mature plants or 12 seedlings. In a case involving a patient charged with possessing 12 ounces of pot, the court said the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), the 1996 ballot initiative that legalized the medical use of marijuana, can be amended only by another popular vote, not by ordinary legislation:

The Legislature...cannot amend an initiative, such as the CUA, unless the initiative grants the Legislature authority to do so. The CUA does not grant the Legislature the authority to amend it without voter approval....
The CUA does not quantify the marijuana a patient may possess. Rather, the only "limit" on how much marijuana a person falling under the Act may possess is it must be for the patient's "personal medical purposes."

Here is a PDF of the decision.

[via the Drug War Chronicle]

RNC: Federalism Is Unconstitutional

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Fri, 16 May 2008 15:22:00 EDT

As Jacob Sullum pointed out yesterday, Barack Obama hasn't exactly made crystal clear his position on medical marijuana.

Fortunately, the Republican National Committee has stepped forward to clear up any confusion. If you support ending the federal SWAT raids on cannabis stores and taking a federalist approach to medical marijuana, the RNC says Obama's your man.

If you think the president must continue paramilitary raids on convalescent centers in states that have approved medical marijuana, and that anything less wouldn't be keeping with his oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, well, then you should vote Republican.

Obama on Medical Marijuana: Getting Clearer

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Thu, 15 May 2008 18:30:00 EDT

Last summer, when Barack Obama repeatedly distanced himself from the Bush administration's policy regarding medical marijuana, he stopped short of explicitly promising to let states go their own way in this area. But two recent interviews seem to have eliminated any wiggle room on that question.

Until now Obama's firmest stand was the one he took on August 21 in Nashua, New Hampshire. Asked if he would continue the Drug Enforcement Administration's raids on medical marijuana users and their caregivers, he replied:

I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. It's not a good use of our resources.

That statement still left open the possibility of prosecuting and raiding the people who supply patients with marijuana and are permitted to do so under state law. In a May 9 interview with Oregon's Willamette Week, however, Obama was specifically asked whether he would "stop the DEA's raids on Oregon medical marijuana growers" (emphasis added), and he said:

I would because I think our federal agents have better things to do, like catching criminals and preventing terrorism. The way I want to approach the issue of medical marijuana is to base it on science, and if there is sound science that supports the use of medical marijuana and if it is controlled and prescribed in a way that other medicine is prescribed, then it's something that I think we should consider.

That last part is rather vague: Who is "we," and what is it they're considering? The Obama campaign's response to questions from the Los Angles Times clarifies things a bit:

"Voters and legislators in the states—from California to Nevada to Maine—have decided to provide their residents suffering from chronic diseases and serious illnesses like AIDS and cancer with medical marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering," said campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt.
"Obama supports the rights of states and local governments to make this choice— though he believes medical marijuana should be subject to [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] regulation like other drugs," LaBolt said. He said the FDA should consider how marijuana is regulated under federal law, while leaving states free to chart their own course.

It seems to me that Obama now has unequivocally promised to back off and allow states to make their own policy decisions about the medical use of marijuana within their own borders. He also seems to be saying the federal government should consider rescheduling marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act so that doctors can legally prescribe it. Even if that second part never materializes, on this issue Obama is much better than John McCain, who (as the Times notes) has repeatedly flip-flopped between federalism and drug-war dogmatism, with the latter at this point winning out.

Uncle Sam's Medical Marijuana Program

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:12:00 EDT

In a recent letter, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) asked Michele Leonhart, acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, to explain her agency's use of "paramilitary-style enforcement raids" and threats of property forfeiture to suppress the medical use of marijuana in California. "Do you think the DEA's limited resources are best utilized conducting enforcement raids on individuals and their caregivers who are conducting themselves legally under California law?" he asked. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "agency spokeswoman Rogene Waite declined to comment on the questions Wednesday, saying only that 'the federal government does not recognize medical marijuana....The DEA, of course, would be part of the federal government.'"

If the federal government does not recognize medical marijuana, why does it send pot to patients? As the Marijuana Policy Project notes, tomorrow marks the 30th anniversary of the federal government's own medical marijuana program, under which four patients regularly receive joints from Uncle Sam. Theoretically, they are experimental subjects in a Compassionate Investigational New Drug (IND) Program, but the government has never bothered to publish any research based on their experiences. At its peak, the IND program for marijuana covered no more than a dozen or so patients, and in 1992 the George H.W. Bush admistration closed it to new applicants after receiving a flood of requests from AIDS patients. But the existing enrollees were grandfathered in, and those who are still alive continue to get a supply of marijuana grown by University of Mississipi scientists under contract with the U.S. government. "Most Americans would be shocked to know that the federal government supplies medical marijuana to patients while claiming that marijuana is a harmful drug with no medical value," says MPP's Rob Kampia. "If federal officials believe their own statements, they're knowingly poisoning four innocent people."

[Chronicle story via The Freedom Files]

The DEA's Disorganized Thoughts on Organized Crime

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:19:00 EDT

The Drug Enforcement Administration's top man in Colorado says the state's lax drug laws have led to an increase in organized crime:

"I think they believe it's a good market and I think the case could be made that it is a good market," said Jeffrey Sweetin, the DEA special agent in charge of Colorado.

Sweetin said it's in part because of Denver's law making marijuana legal in small amounts and a state-wide initiative to legalize medical marijuana.

It's not clear how a law that Denver police have been ignoring, and that it any case applies only to possession of small quantities for personal use, would attract drug traffickers to Colorado. The medical marijuana law, approved by voters in 2000, likewise does not allow distribution, only cultivation and possession of limited amounts by registered patients. Maybe Sweetin is suggesting that Colorado has been flooded by pot dealers because patients authorized by the state to grow and use medical marijuana nevertheless are relying on the black market. That would increase overall demand because without the law those patients would have had to...rely on the black market. Later in the article he suggests that Colorado is not the final destination for all the drugs allegedly entering the state:

"People here think they're so far from the border, they're insulated from it," he said. "They're not insulated from it."
Colorado has long been an ideal location for drug dealers.

"We're really the hub of the western interstate system." Sweetin said. "If you couple that also with we're an airline hub, a major airline hub, we're a bus hub, we're a train hub; it's really the perfect location to trans-ship from."

And the medical marijuana law, coupled with a local decriminalization measure that had no practical effect, somehow has made Colorado's location...more perfect, I guess. Is it too much to expect reporters to challenge drug warriors when they spout nonsense like this? It's not even a matter of questioning current policy—just following up with a question or two that would elucidate what they're claiming. Something sharp and to the point, like "Huh?"

Update: Going beyond "huh?," Colorado Confidential asked the DEA for evidence to support Sweetin's assertion that organized crime/drug trafficking is on the rise in Colorado:

No hard data were cited in the Channel 4 story regarding the reported increase in organized crime, and there was a good reason, according to a drug agency spokesman.
"I don't think there's any numbers I can give," said DEA media representative Mike Turner about the crime connection to legalization efforts. "It's just that the ongoing cases we're seeing I think reflect the fact that that's what's going on."

[Thanks to Mason Tvert for the tip.]

Successful Medical Necessity Defense in Texas Marijuana Case

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:44:00 EDT

This week Tim Stevens, a 53-year-old Amarillo man who smokes marijuana to relieve the cyclical vomiting syndrome associated with HIV infection, used a necessity defense to win an acquittal on a possession charge. His attorney, Jeff Blackburn, says this appears to be the first time the defense, which argues that breaking the law was necessary to prevent a harm worse than the one the law is aimed at preventing, has been successful in a Texas marijuana case.

Stevens, whose vomiting has been so severe that he was hospitalized and received blood transfusions, was arrested last October after an anonymous tipster saw him sharing a joint on a friend's porch in Amarillo and called the police. He had about a twelfth of an ounce of marijuana, resulting in a Class B misdemeanor charge that carries a penalty of up to six months in jail and a $2,000 fine. He probably could have gotten off with a fine or a year's probation, Blackburn says, "but he didn't want to; he wanted to take a stand." The trial lasted about 10 hours on Tuesday, and the jury came back after 11 minutes with a "not guilty" verdict.

Blackburn says the expert testimony of Steve Jenison, medical director of the Infectious Diseases Bureau in New Mexico's Department of Health, helped establish that marijuana is demonstrably effective at treating nausea and superior in some ways to the legal alternatives. (For one thing, unlike the synthetic THC capsule Marinol, it does not have to be swallowed and kept down, a feat for someone suffering from severe nausea.) Blackburn, who was not at all confident about the prospects for Stevens' unusual defense in a "very, very conservative area," also credits "a streak of independence" and a "distaste for government" that he says is common in West Texas. "I think these jurors like the idea that they get to make a decision about what the law means, about when it applies," he says, "and I don't think they were shy at all about deciding how valuable the law proscribing marijuana use really is."

Barney Frank: Feds Should Decriminalize Marijuana

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 10:21:00 EDT

Fast forward to about the 6 minute mark.

If we're left with choosing between the authoritarian socialism of today's GOP or the socialism-with-individual-liberty of Barney Frank, I'll take the latter in a heartbeat. We could do worse to have more like him in Congress.

Also, Bill Maher needs to read the newspaper.

More Frank eloquence on the subject of individual freedom here...

Update on the Ricks Forfieture Case

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:34:00 EDT

Bob Ewing of the Institute for Justice has an op-ed in the Cleveland Plain Dealer today on the outrageous case of Luther and Meredith Ricks, a Lima, Ohio couple who lost $400,000 in life savings to civil asset forfeiture.

(Disclosure: After reading about the Ricks case on my personal site and at reason, a friend of mine persuaded his law firm to represent the Ricks pro-bono.)

Internists Endorse Access to Medical Marijuana

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:48:00 EST

In a new position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) "urges review of marijuana's status as a schedule I controlled substance and its reclassification into a more appropriate schedule, given the scientific evidence regarding marijuana's safety and efficacy in some clinical conditions." It also "strongly urges protection from criminal or civil penalties for patients who use medical marijuana as permitted under state laws." The ACP, which represents 124,000 internal medicine specialists and publishes Annals of Internal Medicine, is the second largest physician group in the country. (The American Medical Association claims about 244,000 members, of which some 135,000 are practicing physicians, according to MedPage Today.) The Marijuana Policy Project calls the ACP's position "the most significant organizational endorsement of medical marijuana access in the field of medicine and science."

I discussed such endorsements in November, when the Assembly of the American Psychiatric Association unanimously urged the federal government to stop interfering with the medical use of marijuana in states where it's legal.

Drew Carey: The Tavis Smiley Interview

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:00:00 EST

On Monday, January 28, reason.tv host Drew Carey sat down with PBS's Tavis Smiley for a wide-ranging conversation about videojournalism, The Price Is Right, medical marijuana, Barack Obama, and much, much more.

Click on the image below to watch. And below that, read the transcript.

Discuss this story at reason's Hit & Run blog.

Tavis: (Laughter) I'm pleased to - I'm pleased to welcome Drew Carey back to this program. I'm laughing already. The popular and talented comedian and actor can now add game show host to his resume. Last fall he took over for Bob Barker on the long-running show "The Price is Right." He's also the host of the prime time CBS game show "The Power of 10."

And if all that were not enough, since I last saw Drew he's decided to get married. Drew, nice to see you.

Drew Carey: Nice to see you, man, thanks for (unintelligible).

Tavis: You all right, man?

Carey: I'm great, yeah.

Tavis: Congratulations on all this stuff.

Carey: Thank you.

Tavis: Are you at all political? Do you -

Carey: Very, but I don't - well, I do these things for Reason.tv, which is how I got "Power of 10." Because I was doing these - I was kind of retired and I had -
"Reason" magazine has a website and I thought hey, you guys should do video because everything was really wonky and a lot of numbers and big words and stuff. We should just do video.

So the first one we did was about medical marijuana. And the DEA has marijuana listed in the same category as heroin, and they raid these marijuana clinics because of it. I know; it's insane.

Tavis: Wow, that's weird.

Carey: I know, everybody has the same expression on their face when I tell them. They went what? Yeah, it's the highest level you can put it under. And so I'm political that way, but as far as any candidate or another, none of them are speaking out about hey, we've got to do something about these marijuana clinics. They're all good, everybody has good ideas and they're all nice, so.

Tavis: What do you make of the idea, though, that these everyday people who you see every day on "The Price is Right" seem to be charged by this contest, left or right, Republican or Democrat. A lot of energy around this campaign.

Carey: Great, yeah, because it really is. There's a change going on in the world right now and everybody can feel it. Can I tell you a great story?

Tavis: Sure, you can always tell a great story.

Carey: An actress I know was in a movie with a 13-year-old actress. And the 13-year-old sat down at the makeup table and went, just had a realization. She said, "What's that?" This friend of mine's in her thirties. "What's that?" She goes, "I realize that I like to take care of my friends and I like to do things for people, but I have to take care of myself first. And if I don't take care of myself, I can't take care of anybody else."

Tavis: And she's 13.

Carey: Yeah. And my friend said, "You just realized - you're 13 and you realized that? I just realized that last year." (Laughter) About 10 years of therapy brought me around to that. So, like, people today are changing. There's a change going on in the way we're treating people and the way we're treating the world.

In my own life, the last couple year has been a really big change. I've gone through a lot of changes and it's reflected in what people are looking for in a candidate. And I think Obama, without - he's such a great speaker. When he's talking about change and hope, forget policies. Because policies, like, they can get all dropped the minute somebody gets into the office, because you've got to deal with Congress and there's other people you've got to fight with.

But the fact that he always keeps it positive, you know what I mean? And never really bashes anybody, doesn't go into numbers land, which I hate in a speech.

Tavis: I love Obama. I've known him for years. The flip side of that argument, though, which he's now starting to get hit with, is that he's been too vague. That hope and a brighter tomorrow can only take you so far.

Carey: I'd love to see a few - I know it's not that kind of show, but I would love you to bring out a chart of everybody's specifics when they run for office compared to what they do. When you're campaigning, and in my first 100 days I'm going to do this and that, and remember Democrats' first 100 days, when Nancy Pelosi went - that stuff goes out the window once you're in office.

Tavis: No, it is that kind of show, and we're going to be talking about that. As a matter of fact, I've got a couple of books I'm working on; one of my next books is called "Accountability," and I'm doing just that. I'm laying out whoever the two finalists are, I've been tracking everybody.

Carey: Good for you.

Tavis: So the book will come out in February of '09, right after they take office, whoever it is, in January of '09. And the whole point of the book is here's what this candidate said when they were running. And now let's see if as a country we can hold them accountable to what they said. Nobody ever does that.

Carey: Right, and everybody - I've seen people that I think their hearts are in the right place when they're - you do have to make compromises when you're in a political office, because it's just one of those kind of things. I don't put hope in the government and I don't put faith in the government. I think that the most important thing, if you want to make a better world, it's not who you vote for it's how you treat people that you meet with every day.

It's every encounter you have on the street. Every time you meet somebody and encounter somebody, whether it's the guy at the gas station, if it's your family, it's how you treat them and how you interact with them. That's what makes the better world. And the government, I don't know, that's, like, if you're depending on the government for your happiness, well, good luck to you. (Laughter) God help you.

Tavis: God help us all. (Laughter) That's a perfect segue to "The Price is Right," because you're meeting everyday people.

Carey: I love it.

Tavis: Are you loving this already?

Carey: I love "Price is Right." That's the best part about it. The best part about "Price is Right," every other game show, like night time game shows, even "Power of 10," the only thing that kind of - everybody's cast on that show. People send in a tape, there's a casting director, there's a whole big process. "Price is Right," you just show up.

You just show up, and they talk to people on line and if you're halfway awake, if you're lively when you're in line, they put you on the show. And that's all you have to do. When people get in line - oh, there's me on the show.

Tavis: There you are, yeah, yeah. (Laughter) There's you on your show.

Carey: When I talk to people on "Price is Right," I go "What do you do for a living?" "I'm a barber," "I'm a service worker," "I work for a phone company." All regular jobs. Nobody's a lawyer, nobody's a CEO. And they're all just regular jobs.

Tavis: Do you find - I've been dying to ask you this - do you find that it's a perfect platform for Drew Carey's funny to come out, or do you find yourself pulling back on your funny on "The Price is Right?"

Carey: You know what it's perfect for? It's a perfect opportunity for Drew Carey's love to come out. Like, that's the key to the whole show.

Tavis: I like that.

Carey: That's the most - you can't believe how love-infested that - it sounds crazy coming from me, because I'm a comic. But it really is like a spiritual - I used to be a Pentecostal when I was in junior high.

Tavis: We discussed that, I grew up the same way, Pentecostal.

Carey: And I've never seen anything - that's the only kind of energy I've felt.

Tavis: Like a Pentecostal church, yeah.

Carey: Yeah, or a Baptist (unintelligible) fundamentalist church, if anybody knows anything about them, like, people are happy.

Tavis: So if I come down and watch you tape one day a week, I ain't got to go to church on Sunday?

Carey: You don't have to go to church anyway, you can pray - you're supposed to pray in private. (Laughter)

Tavis: I'm not going to church Sunday. Bishop, you ain't going to see me Sunday, I'm going to "The Price is Right" on Friday.

Carey: They got Jesus, he was praying in private. (Laughter) That's all I got to say. Read it yourself. It's amazing -

Tavis: Point well taken.

Carey: - I never forget any of that stuff.

Tavis: You haven't changed much on the show. You're still using the same microphone.

Carey: It's cordless now.

Tavis: The same games. Well it is cordless now, yeah.

Carey: Yeah, Bob didn't trust the cordless. So I got -

Tavis: (Laughs) That's the only change you've made, is the cordless microphone.

Carey: Yeah, and the skinny mic, everybody I thought, wow, why are we using the skinny mic? But then - because you're always poking at somebody's face, and when somebody's not used to being on TV, you get that big microphone in your face, it tightens you up. So this one I could just, like, throw over there and you hardly notice it because it's, like, the smallest mic we could find.

Tavis: I never thought about that, it makes perfect sense, though. You don't intimidate the guests.

Carey: Yeah, and I can hold it low instead of - I don't have to bring it right up to their face. And then this year is the first year "The Price is Right" theme song is in stereo. (Laughter) Can you believe it? Can you believe it? They edit the show in analogue. It's not even digital. Kids at home with an iMac are more technologically advanced -

Tavis: Than "The Price is Right."

Carey: - than "The Price is Right," yeah, right now. (Laughter) And honestly, I don't even know if it frustrates them. Like, that's how they did it when they got the job, that's how they're always going to do it. That's one of the things that's nice about the show. It's like going to Grandma's house. (Laughter) Still got a dial phone, like okay, whatever.

Tavis: Have you figured out which of the games - I have my favorite, but have you figured out which one of the games is your favorite yet?

Carey: I like spinning the wheel.

Tavis: You like spinning the wheel? You know what I like? I like that thing when you drop the thing down there.

Carey: Plinko.

Tavis: Plinko, I love that thing, man.

Carey: Plinko's great. It's based on a Japanese game called pachinko. It's like a Japanese slot machine, and you put in the money and it goes -

Tavis: I love that thing.

Carey: It's everybody's favorite. People wear plinko shirts. I've already a couple of times - so many people wear "I want to play plinko" shirts that have actually - they've got to play plinko. So they have their plinko shirt and I go "Hey, guess what you're doing right now?" "I don't know." "You get to play plinko." And then they just go bananas. (Laughter) They just lose everything and fall down.

Honestly, people do their "I found Jesus" dance when they get - they're so happy they go right into the happiest thing they could find. And everybody at the - I tell this to audiences all the time - find this in another Hollywood place, another TV audience. They're rooting for strangers to do well. They're, like, screaming for them to win the money, helping them out and screaming for, and that's almost like, I found, like, the secret to life right there is, like, wanting strangers to do well.

Tavis: To do well.

Carey: Yeah. And they don't even know them; they've got nothing to do with them, (unintelligible).

Tavis: Well if you're in the audience or if you're at home, like I am, watching, you're living and celebrating vicariously through the person on stage. I like that.

Carey: Glad you bring that up. This is a really smart show; that's why I like coming to this show, and a lot of smart people watch this show. It's really like Carl Jung. It's like all that Joseph Campbell myth stuff. It's the strangers plucked from obscurity and they have to go through trials to get to their reward, and it's any old average person, and that's why everybody watching zones on somebody they relate to for some reason. He reminds me of a buddy of mine, he reminds me of me, whatever it is. And that's who you root for all the way through to the showcase.

Tavis: So why doesn't this work with Hillary and Barack?

Carey: Well, they're a lawyer (laughter) (unintelligible) lawyer.

Tavis: Yeah, they're not rooting for each other.

Carey: Oh, well, they (unintelligible), but that's the thing. When you have - I'm having a real trouble with this now in my stand-up act because I have to do - I'm doing Vegas next weekend. I'm only doing 15 minutes, but so much of my act is, like, attack-oriented, like this guy's an idiot, and this guy's stupid, and she's - and it's from before.

And I don't think like that. I'm getting so far away from that now. But when you're in politics, it's like everybody's telling you you've got to attack that other person, get that other person. It's not a loving; it's not a place of love. It's coming from a place of fear all the time.

Tavis: I totally agree with that. You're telling me - I think I just heard you say that "The Price is Right" is actually forcing you to change your stand-up, even.

Carey: Yeah. It's not just "The Price is Right," it's all this - it happened before "The Price is Right," but "Price is Right" really sealed that. You could see it in action there. It's one thing to have a theory, and then you see it in action and everybody walks out so much happier. And I tell them, I go, "My proof of what I'm saying, that if you want the best for others and treat others with love that it blesses your life, my proof is how good you feel right now and how happy you are when you walk out of the (unintelligible).

Tavis: But is it really the love or the new car?

Carey: It's the love. (Laughter) People in the audience are feeling good. They didn't win a new car. And you don't get the car till the show airs. (Laughter)

Tavis: And the show, like, never airs, right?

Carey: Yeah, we'll just (unintelligible). (Laughter)

Tavis: Before I let you go right quick, so "The Power of 10," how's that?

Carey: They're pulling to off (unintelligible).

Tavis: They're pulling it for the moment but they said they're going to bring it back in the summer, though.

Carey: I think so, yeah, I hope so. That's another really smart show. We ask a lot of tough questions on that show, and get real answers from people.

Tavis: You are Mr. Game Show Guy, man.

Carey: Yeah, I don't mind it. I like giving away other people's money. (Laughter)

Tavis: I've got to come see you.

Carey: Yeah, you do.

Tavis: Drew, I'm proud of you, man.

Carey: Oh, I'm really (unintelligible).

Tavis: Good to see you. I always enjoy our conversation. And congrats on the engagement.

Carey: Thank you, I love being on your show, it's a great show.

Tavis: You come back any time, man.

Carey: Thanks, man.

Tavis: And I'll come on yours if I can play plinko. (Laughter)

Carey: If you just want to come visit -

Tavis: I just want to come - I don't even want to go on air. I want to just come and just play plinko.

Carey: That can be arranged.

Tavis: Could we work that out?

Carey: Absolutely. If you want to bring your family, if you have, like, family visiting and they want to come see the show, we'll let you play plinko backstage.

Tavis: You should not have said that.

Carey: (Unintelligible.)

Tavis: I've got nine brothers and sisters who are all trying to get tickets to L.A. right now.

Carey: No problem.

Tavis: Drew Carey, I love him. "The Price is Right," of course, weekdays on CBS.

The Dose Makes the Poison, Even for Marijuana Smoke

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:15:00 EST

In a recent study published by the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, Health Canada researchers found higher levels of certain toxins in marijuana smoke than in tobacco smoke. The researchers used a smoking machine to compare cigarettes made from Players brand fine-cut tobacco with cigarettes made from cannabis produced by Prairie Plant Systems of Saskatoon, which grows medical marijuana under contract with Health Canada. The marijuana smoke had 20 times as much ammonia and five times as much hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides, possibly due to higher levels of nitrate fertilizer traces in the marijuana. Then again, only the tobacco smoke contained the potent carcinogens known as tobacco-specific nitrosamines, and it had "moderately higher levels" of potentially hazardous compounds such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Guess which comparison was emphasized in the press coverage.

"Cannabis smoke 'has more toxins,'" BBC News reported, warning that ammonia is "linked to cancer," while hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides "are linked to heart and lung damage respectively." The Guardian agreed: "Cannabis smoke more toxic than puffing tobacco." Even EarthTimes ("Cannabis smoke more harmful than tobacco smoke") and New Scientist ("Inhaled cannabis is more toxic than tobacco smoke") went along with this gloss. But it's not what the researchers reported (emphasis added):

The combustion of any plant material will result in a complex mixture of chemicals, the composition and percentages of which depend on a large number of variables. The present study supports previous research and found that marijuana smoke contains qualitatively many of the same chemicals as tobacco smoke. This qualitative similarity is more important when assessing the risks for adverse outcomes than are the differences in level of a particular substance, which can change from sample to sample or from one smoking condition to another.

Even more important in assessing the health risks of pot smoking is a point that BBC News halfway acknowledged: While a joint a day would count as fairly heavy consumption for a pot smoker (since most pot smokers light up occasionally), the current mean for cigarette smokers is about 14 cigarettes a day (down from about 20 in 1993). This huge difference in dose is presumably the main reason pot smoking has not been linked to cancer, heart disease, or emphysema in epidemiological studies, despite the similarity between marijuana and tobacco smoke. Those still concerned about possible respiratory effects, of course, can avoid combustion products by using vaporizers (as do many patients who use marijuana as a medicine).

Addendum: A commenter asked about the efficacy of water pipes in reducing the hazards of pot smoking. They do not work nearly as well as vaporizers, partly because they filter out THC, encouraging people to smoke more for the same effect. Here is a report on research comparing water pipes to vaporizers, which says, "We learned early on that waterpipes don't help filter out undesirable particulate matter, although waterpipes may help reduce certain water-soluble gases."

The DEA Steals From California's Teasury

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:43:00 EST

California NORML has a new angle on the DEA's medical marijuana raids, noting that they are costing the state "tens of millions in tax revenues":

Although the DEA has tried to portray dispensaries as illegal drug dealers, records show they have operated as legal businesses, paying income, payroll, business, and sales taxes, and offering workmen's compensation, unemployment, and health insurance benefits to their employees. Several dispensaries closed by the DEA had licenses to operate from local governments, including facilities in Alameda County, Morro Bay, and Kern County.

California NORML cites several cases in which sales tax payments by dispensaries were disrupted by DEA raids. (It also notes that the federal government has grossly exaggerated the income earned by the dispensaries, failing to take into account not only taxes but the cost of rent, payroll, and inventory.) "At this time of budget deficits," says California NORML Director Dale Gieringer, "we can ill afford the DEA's war on medical marijuana. Californians are better off having medical marijuana distributed by tax-paying businesses, than being taxed in order to arrest, prosecute, and imprison medical marijuana providers."