home

DOJ to Issue New Guidelines on Medical Marijuana Busts

Bump and Update: Here is the text of the DOJ memo.

The Department of Justice is sending out a three page memo to prosecutors in the 14 states that have legalized medical marijuana with new guidelines for prosecutions. According to unnamed officials,

... [the memo] emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law.

Without a doubt? Sounds like there's some wiggle room. [More...]

At the same time, the officials said, the government will still prosecute those who use medical marijuana as a cover for other illegal activity. The memo particularly warns that some suspects may hide old-fashioned drug dealing or other crimes behind a medical marijuana business.

...In particular, the memo urges prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases which involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or other crimes.

...And while the policy memo describes a change in priorities away from prosecuting medical marijuana cases, it does not rule out the possibility that the federal government could still prosecute someone whose activities are allowed under state law.

While the feds seem to be taking at least a small step in the right direction, some states are tightening up the rules. The New York Times reported Sunday, Los Angeles will be intensifying prosecution efforts against dispensaries:

For the first time, law enforcement officials in Los Angeles have vowed to prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries that turn a profit, with police officials saying they expect to conduct raids. Their efforts are widely seen as a campaign to sway the City Council into adopting strict regulations after two years of debate.

Carmen A. Trutanich, the newly elected city attorney, recently persuaded the Council to put aside a proposed ordinance negotiated with medical marijuana supporters for one drafted by his office. The new proposal calls for dispensaries to have renewable permits, submit to criminal record checks, register the names of members with the police and operate on a nonprofit basis. If enacted, it is likely to result in the closing of hundreds of marijuana dispensaries.

According to Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley,

“About 100 percent of dispensaries in Los Angeles County and the city are operating illegally...The time is right to deal with this problem.”

...But Police Department officials said they were expecting to be called on soon to raid collectives.

If they are operating illegally under CA law, then they are also not exempt from DOJ's new policy, which exempts only those operating "without a doubt in compliance" with state law. Take San Diego:

[l]ast month, San Diego police officers and sheriff’s deputies, along with agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration, raided 14 marijuana dispensaries and arrested 31 people. In an interview, Bonnie Dumanis, the district attorney for San Diego County, said that state laws governing medical marijuana were unclear and that the city had not yet instituted new regulations.

Ms. Dumanis said that she approved of medical marijuana clubs where patients grow and use their own marijuana, but that none of the 60 or so dispensaries in the county operated that way.

The "not for profit" requirement could eliminate CA dispensaries:

Marijuana advocates say that interpretation would regulate dispensaries out of existence and thwart the will of voters who approved medical cannabis in 1996.

Which seems to be the intent, particularly in Los Angeles:

Mr. Trutanich, the city attorney, went further, saying dispensaries were prohibited from accepting cash even to reimburse growers for labor and supplies. He said that a recent California Supreme Court decision, People v. Mentch, banned all over-the-counter sales of marijuana; other officials and marijuana advocates disagree.

It remains to be seen what effect the DOJ memo will have. At least in California, it seems, the courts will have to decide what compliance with state law means.

Here's an interesting description of how a dispensary in Oakland, which the city believes is in compliance with state law works:

Visitors to the low-slung building are greeted by security guards who check the required physicians’ recommendations. Inside, the dispensary looks like a bank, except that the floor is covered with hemp carpeting and the eight tellers stand behind identical displays of marijuana and hashish.

There is a laboratory where technicians determine the potency of the marijuana and label it accordingly. (Harborside says it rejects 80 percent of the marijuana that arrives at its door for insufficient quality.) There is even a bank vault where the day’s cash is stored along with reserves of premium cannabis. An armored truck picks up deposits every evening.

City officials routinely audit the dispensary’s books. Surplus cash is rolled back into the center to pay for free counseling sessions and yoga for patients.

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

< Leave Harry Reid Alone? | Medical Marijuana Dispensaries: How Big a Growth Industry? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Dumb question (none / 0) (#1)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 01:26:55 AM EST
    Why can't they turn a profit? Are there any other therapeutic/medical/etc services that can't?

    because, (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 02:30:26 AM EST
    they would then be in competition with the pharmeceutical companies, risking millions in donations to re-election campaigns.

    Parent
    Seems to be a way to discourage (none / 0) (#4)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 07:49:53 AM EST
    people from getting into the business.

    The DEA seems to capture and close down the domestic growers far more often than they manage to intercept the shipments from foreign sources, too. An image emerged for me not long ago when  articles were published with the headlines, "Rising domestic pot production threatening Mexican drug gang," and "Cartels Face an Economic Battle."  

    Parent

    Dumb Question (none / 0) (#3)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 07:28:46 AM EST
    Under Proposition 215, it is illegal for anyone other than a patient or the patient's primary care giver to grow or possess marijuana.  In the absence of the patient-primary care giver  relationship it's still illegal even to hand someone a joint.  

    A for-profit clinic is not a primary care giver.

    And a non-profit is? (none / 0) (#9)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 11:44:05 AM EST
    Also Not Likely a Primary Care Giver n/t (none / 0) (#17)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 03:48:39 PM EST
    "without a doubt in compliance" (none / 0) (#5)
    by MikeDitto on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 09:04:09 AM EST
    I don't think that's a legal standard, I think that's the AP reporter's commentary on the status of things. As in these dispensaries are obviously in compliance with state law yet are being targeted by the feds.

    They still don't get it (none / 0) (#7)
    by SeeEmDee on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 11:33:48 AM EST
    The reason why Prop 215 was written up the way it was is simple: it illustrates the pointless of cannabis prohibition en toto.

    All this caterwauling about the 'problems' of implementing Prop215 in the various counties shows how dumb the laws restricting cannabis are...but the 'authorities' keep thinking that with another tweak or knob or lever attached. the system can be made workable, when what's needed is scrapping it altogether.


    State Laws (none / 0) (#8)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 11:36:24 AM EST
    Does this mean that if a state decides to relax other pot laws the the DOJ will not pursue if the grower is within state laws? Could be interesting down the road.....

    Isn't the more effective approach (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 11:56:26 AM EST
    to push for removing cannabis as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)?  

    Doesn't look like federal DOJ is willing to go that far though.


    C'mon poeple...baby steps (none / 0) (#11)
    by ai002h on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 01:17:10 PM EST
    Lets give the Obama admin credit, and lets be realistic with our expectations in the short term. Federal action overriding states on drug policy has been a huge problem, so lets not now trivialize this cause its convenient.

    Baby steps? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 01:55:13 PM EST
    Aren't we adults? Hasn't this topic been researched and argued enough to know what is the right thing to do?

    Baby steps? Like the slow, deliberate and carefully considered steps they took to enact that Patriot Act?

    Parent

    We're being realistic... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 02:15:26 PM EST
    it is realistic to expect to be allowed to eat/drink/smoke/imbibe what I want to treat what or want...or even just for fun.

    It is the state that is being quite unrealistic.

    Parent

    No, States taking the proper (none / 0) (#14)
    by ai002h on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 02:29:08 PM EST
    action is definetely realistic, as some of the states have shown. I just think its a tad too early to expect the Federal government to get involved and rewrite the laws. Don't get me wrong, I don't think those actions are radical or drastic, but that given the Obama administration's caution, this is good news that we should welcome instead of critique.

    Parent
    A tad too early? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 02:35:57 PM EST
    Never too early to do the right thing and right some long-standing wrongs.  But you're right, thats more a beef with congress than the pres...just wish he'd take the lead and ask for some legislation to sign.

    Parent
    Judge rules against LA's (none / 0) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 03:24:08 PM EST
    medical pot moratorium.

    LOS ANGELES - A judge has temporarily barred Los Angeles from enforcing a moratorium on medical marijuana clinics.

    Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant on Monday granted a preliminary injunction sought by Green Oasis, a medical marijunana collective that sued last month.

    The judge ruled that the City Council failed to follow state law when it extended an initial ban on new dispensaries.

    The injunction only applies to Green Oasis but it could inspire other dispensaries to sue. AP