cannabisnews.com: DEA Raids West Hollywood Cannabis Club





DEA Raids West Hollywood Cannabis Club
Posted by FoM on November 14, 2001 at 17:46:40 PT
By Karen Ocamb 
Source: Frontiers Newsmagazine 
During a time of war, acts of heroism by ordinary people can easily go unnoticed. But wheelchair-bound Marlene Rasnick's friends knew what it took for her to attend the Nov. 6 candlelight vigil protesting the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) raid on the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center (LACRC). During that bust at dusk on Oct. 25, scores of DEA agents executed a search warrant and seized computers, medical records, bank accounts, gardening equipment and 400 marijuana plants. As LACRC's board co-chair, Rasnick valiantly defied the ravages of end-stage ovarian cancer to make the demonstration. "It's my fight-back instinct," Rasnick told Frontiers, "my desire to live." 
Like a captain who is the last to leave the ship, Rasnick and LACRC President Scott Imler brought up the rear of a seven-minute, single-file procession of members carrying triangle-folded American flags from LACRC headquarters across Santa Monica Boulevard to the rally. About 250 supporters listened to music and firebrand speeches as Imler officially announced the center's closure. Helped to the stage, Rasnick stood unaided expressing her grief "at what the DEA has done" and thanking the staff. Supported by her husband, Lee Boek, Rasnick lit a memorial candle honoring members who've passed away. Rasnick appeared oddly comfortable. These were her people. Eleven days earlier, she had been their spokesperson during a news conference at West Hollywood City Hall after the surprise DEA raid. In fact, the 57-year-old actress and teacher with Boek in their Public Works Improvisational Theatre company had come directly from teaching a "theatre games" class. Three months ago she had been well enough to improvise a performance piece at Studio A in Silverlake. "It was a medical and emotional struggle to do it, but it was such a powerful experience," she said. Since the raid, her friends have shared their marijuana, "medicine" she's taken for four years to help her eat, drink, and ease the wrenching pain of post-chemotherapy nausea. Nonethe-less, like others now bereft of the drug they depend upon to ease the pain from cancer, AIDS, or other serious illness, Rasnick's prepared to go to MacArthur Park to find a drug dealer if she must. "If you have some spirit of rebellion or denial or hope or some kind of life-affirming thing, [marijuana] makes it easier to literally get out of bed in the morning. I don't know what the hell we are going to do now," she said. LACRC supporters say the center was cultivating medical marijuana with the full knowledge and consent of the California attorney general, the Los Angeles district attorney, the Sheriff's Department and the city of West Hollywood under the aegis of the state's voter-approved medical marijuana initiative, Proposition 215. Rasnick and others at the vigil outside LACRC headquarters on Santa Monica Boulevard are particularly shocked and outraged that the DEA decided to raid the center at a time when the U.S. Justice Department, President Bush and Gov. Gray Davis warn of the possibility of more terrorist attacks. "You would think in a time of war, bio-terrorism, anthrax, national security alerts--the whole world changing--that there would be higher priorities for the federal government," West Hollywood City Councilman John Duran said at the news conference. Duran, who is also LACRC's attorney, noted that the DEA got a 70- year-old federal judge in Florida to sign the search warrant. Imler is also concerned about what the DEA might do with the seized medical records of the 960 currently active members, as well as the names of nonactive members, those who applied but were rejected under the center's strict guidelines, and the 450 participating physicians. "I think there are some real legal and confidentiality concerns about what is going to happen to those records," he said. Designer and LACRC member Tony Elder, 40, witnessed the raid, which he described as "overkill." "They have my medical records. I dose medical marijuana daily. Are they going to now come to my home? Do I need to live in fear?" No, said Duran. "It is highly unlikely that the DEA would go after individuals who grow marijuana plants for their own use. That would fall to the local district attorney who is bound by state law, and Prop. 215 still stands. "There is a reason we're the last surviving club--because we did it right. We had full disclosure with the state attorney general and all local law enforcement agencies in order to operate within the bonds of state law," he said. In fact, one year ago, the city of West Hollywood and Wells Fargo Bank helped buy the building in which the LACRC operated. One of the conditions was that the center be open for inspection without notice. The raid raises "all sorts of legal questions," said Duran, not the least of which is the question of states' rights versus federal law. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 ranks marijuana as a "Schedule 1" drug, a narcotic classification worse than heroin (a "Schedule 2" drug), cocaine and crystal methamphetamine. Essentially, the classification means marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use," has "a high potential for abuse," and cannot be used for anything other than government approved research projects. Nonethe-less, compassion for people with AIDS and those with other life-threatening or serious illnesses has spurred a "Medical Marijuana Movement" to decriminalize the drug and make it readily available with a doctor's prescription. Since Prop. 215 (or the Compassionate Use Act) passed in California and a similar measure passed in Arizona in November of 1996, Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Maine, Colorado, Nevada, Hawaii and the District of Columbia have passed medical marijuana initiatives or laws. Favorable bills are pending in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Min-nesota, New York, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont, with bills soon to be introduced in Delaware, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Meanwhile, with nearly 99% of marijuana arrests made by state and local police, not federal agents, juries have increasingly acquitted growers and users in numerous medical marijuana-related trials. In a Pew Research Center nationwide poll last March, 73% of respondents said they supported allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana. But two recent events have propelled the issue into sharp relief. Last July, former Congressman Asa Hutchinson told senators considering his confirmation as DEA head that he would declare war on marijuana and cannabis clubs. Perhaps more important, though, is the controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling on May 14, 2001, in the case of the United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative. While the DEA cited the ruling as the justification for the LACRC and other raids, Capt. Lynda Castro of the West Hollywood Sheriff's station said that local law enforcement has been given no direction "to follow that course of action. So, until the law is more clearly defined and the state and federal courts are in concert together, it's going to be as confusing." Meanwhile, the department, sensitive to the community's needs, recognizes that "marijuana is an effective treatment for people who are sick and need it for medicinal purposes and we're not going to step in the middle or take any action on a local level unless we're directed to do that by our state attorney general and/or specific direction from the court." Indeed, Castro said she's sent deputy sheriffs into LACRC "to see that it's an operation about helping sick people. It's not about dopeheads smoking marijuana or dealing drugs." Given the mission of the center, the raid "blows your mind away from the human perspective," she said. The action against the Oakland Cooperative that prompted the Supreme Court hearing began under the Clinton administration, which decided to get federal Judge Charles Breyer to issue an injunction closing the club in 1998 instead of prosecuting a criminal trial. Incidentally, that judge is the brother of Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who recused himself from hearing the case. The cooperative appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which, on Sept. 13, 1999, ordered Breyer to reissue his order giving the cooperative permission to continue distributing marijuana to those who could prove a "medical necessity." The Clinton administration appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the order could create a loophole in federal drug laws and the Justice Department ordered that the cooperative remain closed until the high court ruled. In the meantime, a slew of health care and medical marijuana activists, joined by 33 members of Congress, asked then-Health and Human Services Department Secretary Donna Shalala to intervene. Citing several medical re-ports, the congressmembers wrote in a Nov. 30, 1999, letter, "The need to make marijuana available for research is underscored by the hard reality of federal law, which confers a one-year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine for possessing a 'personal use' amount of marijuana--even for people with AIDS, cancer, or multiple sclerosis who are using marijuana for medicinal purposes with their doctors' approval. These federal penalties threaten the tens of thousands of patients who are already using medicinal marijuana." Finally, on May 14 of this year, the Supreme Court ruled, narrowly focusing on whether the cooperative violated the Controlled Substance Act's prohibition on selling or growing marijuana. They ruled 8-0 that the club itself could not claim the "medical necessity" exception defense traditionally afforded individual defendants. Federal law "reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas. The court upheld the federal government's authority to close the club with a court order as a large distribution center. "There is no medical necessity exception to the prohibition at issue, even when the patient is seriously ill and lacks alternative avenues for relief." The one "express exception" Congress allowed for, Thomas wrote, was making marijuana available for government-approved research projects. But he pointedly noted that the court was not deciding numerous constitutional issues in this decision. It's the court's job to interpret the federal criminal code, "not rewrite it," he wrote, "nor are we passing today on a constitutional question, such as whether the Controlled Substance Act exceeds Congress' power under the Commerce Clause." Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also expressed concern. "Most notably, whether the [medical necessity] defense might be available to a seriously ill patient for whom there is no other means of avoiding starvation or extraordinary suffering is a difficult issue that is not presented here," wrote Stevens. "The overbroad language of the Court's opinion is especially unfortunate given the importance of showing respect for the sovereign states that comprise our Federal Union." Conservative Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., also praised the court ruling. "The unanimous vote in this case reflects the overwhelming evidence that marijuana has been appropriately and lawfully declared to be a dangerous, mind-altering substance that should not be legalized for whatever contrived reason," Barr said. "The true aim of those who support the so-called medical marijuana movement, has been ... the legalization of all drugs. Terminally ill patients have been used as pawns in a cynical political game designed to weaken society's opposition to drug abuse." But California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who submitted an amicus brief in support of the cooperative, called the ruling "unfortunate." In that Feb. 20, 2001, brief, Lockyer wrote that the "Controlled Substance Act (CSA) unduly interferes with the Ninth Amendment ability of the states to enact voter approved legislation." He added that "states are entitled to create an exception for cannabis under the [CSA] because of the traditional state interest in regulating for the health, safety and welfare of its citizens." The federal law prohibiting the use of cannabis by seriously ill people in California also "violates traditional notions of state sovereignty protected by the Tenth Amendment." A new constitutional challenge has been filed in the 9th Circuit, arguing that the federal government has no authority to interfere with medical marijuana in California under the Interstate Commerce Clause, and that the federal law violates the Fifth, Ninth and 10th Amendments. In another blow to state sovereignty, as reported by the Associated Press, the Bush administration is now going after Oregon's assisted-suicide law. Attorney General John Ashcroft gave federal drug agents the go-ahead Nov. 6 to take action against doctors who help terminally ill patients die. The decision would allow the revocation of drug licenses of doctors who participate in an assisted suicide using a federally controlled substance, according to the AP. Ashcroft based his decision on the Supreme Court medical marijuana ruling in May. Meanwhile, on July 31, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., introduced legislation that would reclassify marijuana as a "Schedule 2" controlled substance, which allows for its use for medical purposes. The bill, which has 19 co-sponsors, including two Republicans, is currently pending in the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health. But while the Supreme Court noted that it was dealing with specific issues, and local and state law enforcement challenge the ruling as confusing or in collision with state sovereignty, the Bush Justice Department has used the decision as the basis for launching a series of raids on medical marijuana distribution centers in California. "The recent enforcement is indicative that we have not lost our priorities in other areas since Sept. 11," Susan Dryden, a Justice Department spokeswoman told The New York Times. "The attorney general and the administration have been very clear: We will be aggressive," she said, adding that they made no distinction between medical marijuana and other illegal drugs. This is very clear in the 27-page search warrant executed on LACRC. Throughout the affidavit, DEA Special Agent Anthony James Zavacky refers to large-scale "narcotics trafficking" and the "manufacturing and distribution of controlled substances and related money-laundering offenses." According to the affidavit, "illegal conduct permeates the organization's activities and that all documents, records and equipment present at the site constitute fruits, instrumentalities or evidence of federal criminal offenses." Imler is one of several people named as being under investigation for criminal activities. Ironically, the affidavit also notes that the operation was initially prompted by Imler's February 1999 application to the DEA to register "for a license to manufacture marijuana for medical research and drug development purposes." That was followed by an on-site visit by a DEA investigator on Sept. 17, 1999, who was given a guided tour. It appears from the affidavit that while Imler thought he was complying with his city mandate to be open for inspection, as well as engaging in the application process to become federally approved, the DEA was gathering evidence for a subsequent bust. "Everything we did to try to be legitimate they used against us," Imler said later. Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, notes that "whether these are medical records is subject to some question. This [LACRC] is not a hospital we're talking about, not a doctor's office. Any patient records that may reflect [the] medical condition of a particular person will be maintained in the strictest of confidentiality as we would in any investigation we're investigating." Otherwise, they will investigate the files "looking for evidence of the violation" of federal laws, "basically, the cultivating and manufacture [of illegal drugs, i.e., marijuana] and possession with intent to distribute," he told Frontiers. The Los Angeles raid has put other California cities on the alert. Indeed, in response to the DEA action, San Francisco District Attorney Terrence Hallinan on Nov. 5 asked the DEA to rethink its campaign. "I urge Administrator Hutchinson to respect our city's approach to medical marijuana, which has reduced crime, saved money, and contributed to public well-being," Hallinan said. "Any move to close the dispensaries will result in sick people trying to get marijuana from street vendors." But as Mrozek told Frontiers in the earlier conversation, "We don't recognize [Prop.] 215--that's the bottom line." Mrozek added that raising the question about the timing of the raid is "kind of a red herring. They're saying, in times of anthrax and terrorism, that the DEA should not be going out there and doing it. That's what federal law enforcement agencies do. They conduct investigations; they're out there looking for violations of federal law." That doesn't sit well with Imler, however. "They're going after medical marijuana while the rest of the world is falling apart. If they had been doing what we paid them to do, then maybe we'd still have a World Trade Center." Complete Title: Reefer Madness: DEA Raids West Hollywood Cannabis Club; Patients With HIV/AIDS, Cancer Outraged News article courtesy of Mapinc. http://mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1912/a08.htmlNewshawk: Zero GSource: Frontiers Newsmagazine (CA) Author: Karen Ocamb Published: November 10, 2001Copyright: 2001 Mercury Capital Publishing, Inc. Website: http://www.frontiersweb.com/ Contact: letters2editor frontiersweb.com Related Articles & Web Site:Medical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmGive Pot-Case Files To Prosecutors, Judge Ordershttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11341.shtmlPot Clubs Bracing for DEA Crackdown http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11333.shtmlThe Feds Crack Down -- on Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11283.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #13 posted by John Markes on November 16, 2001 at 10:41:15 PT
did not mean to offend...
I apologise if I offended you. It was not intended. You said trained; I said taught. The training, and the students are usually not a problem. It's teaching that usually is. Most teach based on the government's perspective and line of reasoning. It places the students a a disadvantage when trying to find alternatives. A matter of perspective. Just my opinion on law schools.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by ekim on November 15, 2001 at 18:53:57 PT:
"States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act."
  
 Legislation Reintroduced To Legalize M. Marijuana 
Posted by FoM on April 03, 2001 at 14:07:02 PT
For Immediate Release - April 3, 2001 
Source: NORML Washington, DC: Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) reintroduced legislation today in the 107th Congress to provide for the medical use of marijuana. The bill is titled the "States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act."
"People who are suffering from severe or terminal illnesses who find a measure of relief from marijuana ought to be able to use it without being treated like criminals," Frank announced. "This bill offers an opportunity for my conservative colleagues to decide if they really want to be consistent on the question of states' rights or if they think the federal government should tell states what to do."The legislation states:"No provision of the Controlled Substances Act [or] ... the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act shall prohibit or otherwise restrict --(A) The prescription or recommendation of marijuana by a physician for medical use.(B) An individual from obtaining and using marijuana from a prescription or recommendation of marijuana by a physician for medical use by such individual.(C) A pharmacy from obtaining and holding marijuana for the prescription of marijuana by a physician for medical use under applicable state law in a State in which marijuana may be prescribed or recommended by a physician for medical use under applicable State law."The legislation reschedules marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II under federal law. This reclassification properly recognizes marijuana's medical utility and enables physicians to legally prescribe it under controlled circumstances while maintaining restrictions on recreational use.Since 1996, nine states -- Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington -- have implemented laws allowing seriously ill patients to possess and use medical marijuana under a doctor's supervision. While these laws protect patients from state criminal marijuana penalties, they do not shield patients from federal prosecution, nor do they allow a state legislature to legally distribute medical marijuana. The legislation introduced in Congress today would afford patients legal protection under federal law, and permit those states that wish to establish medical marijuana distribution systems the legal authority to do so.NORML Executive Director R. Keith Stroup called the proposal a streamlined effort to get marijuana to those who require it."Historically, voters and state legislatures have been more receptive to the medical marijuana issue than the federal government," Stroup explained. "This legislation addresses this paradigm and effectively gets the federal government out of the way of those states that wish to make marijuana available as a medicine."Stroup said that the Supreme Court's apparent skepticism regarding whether patients or medical marijuana providers may legally raise the defense of "medical necessity" in federal marijuana cases makes the need to reform federal law more pertinent than ever. "Judging from the questions raised by several of the justices, it appears likely the Supreme Court may reject the medical necessity defense in federal cases," he said."Therefore, passage of this legislation by Congress is crucial. It will enact federal protections to safeguard patients who are using marijuana medicinally under their doctor's supervision, and will provide an opportunity for states to establish their own legal, regulated medical marijuana distribution systems to supply medicine to those who need it."Joining Frank in support of this act are Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), John Conyers (D-MI), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), John Olver (D-MA), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).For more information, please contact Keith Stroup, NORML Executive Director, at (202) 483-5500. For additional information, please contact Peter Kovar at the office of Rep. Barney Frank at (202) 225-5931.Complete Title: Congressman Reintroduces Legislation To Legalize Medical MarijuanaNORML
http://www.norml.org/Congressman Barney Frank
http://www.house.gov/frank/welcome.htmCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives
http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by el_toonces on November 15, 2001 at 16:33:14 PT:
trained poorly?
John --I just re-read your post and don't get your comment that my legal training was "poor." Why would you say something like that, esp. when I agree with you and you don't even address my analysis of how the Court has analyzed (misunderstood?)the interesections of the commerce clause and the ninth amendment?I have never been ashamed of attending Univ of Mich School of Law; should I be? Where did you find a legal education that was, as you would be wont to put it, is "superior"?Pax vobiscum,El
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by el_toonces on November 15, 2001 at 16:28:21 PT:
John and Zero........
John --My own personal interpretation of the commcerce clause is that it should be read in such a way that the position you advocate is correct; in other words, personally I agree with you.However, Zero's observation that most lawyers seem to disagree is one of great merit, for when I analyze the situation the way I was trained to in law school in and light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions -- which are at best inconsistent in their application of the commerce clause and the ninth amendment -- then John's position seems simple (if only because unlike the court cases, it is clear and unequivocal) and unlikely to win in the Court, which is why.....WE MUST GET CONGRESS TO RE-WRITE THE CSA as it sucks and deos not reflect reality, espeically as interpreted by this Court and this AG and his DEA chief!I am off to see John Mayer play tonight, so 
Pax vobiscum,El
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on November 15, 2001 at 11:13:38 PT
Hi Everyone!
I just wanted to tell you that I just had a wonderful talk on the phone with Daniel Forbes. He reads Cannabis News and we talked about many different things. I asked if I could mention that we talked and he said yes and said that he has a story coming out in Rolling Stone about the DEA raids. The release date of the magazine is December 7th! I wanted to share this with all of you.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Zero_G on November 15, 2001 at 10:46:44 PT:
Costitutional issue
But California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who submitted an amicus brief in support of the cooperative, called the ruling "unfortunate." In that Feb. 20, 2001, brief, Lockyer wrote that the "Controlled Substance Act (CSA) unduly interferes with the Ninth Amendment ability of the states to enact voter approved legislation." He added that "states are entitled to create an exception for cannabis under the [CSA] because of the traditional state interest in regulating for the health, safety and welfare of its citizens." The federal law prohibiting the use of cannabis by seriously ill people in California also "violates traditional notions of state sovereignty protected by the Tenth Amendment." A new constitutional challenge has been filed in the 9th Circuit, arguing that the federal government has no authority to interfere with medical marijuana in California under the Interstate Commerce Clause, and that the federal law violates the Fifth, Ninth and 10th Amendments.My conversations with attorneys seems leads me to believe that most are trained as el_toonces describes. My personal reading of the law, (I am not a lawyer) agrees with John Markes.It appears that this is winding its way through the system.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by John Markes on November 15, 2001 at 09:37:43 PT
Nothing to be sorry about...
I'm, sorry, but you are mis-informed. Just because no one has challenged it correctly does not mean it won't work.The CSA was meant to PREVENT illegal drug commerce. The actions of the federal government in this case increases it. It's like the tomoato question. You can grow it locally and sell it locally and the federal government has no jurisdiction, in spite of the fact that interstate commerce in tomatoes might be affected. It all depends upon the presumption and whether you accept it or challenge it. No one has ever tried to challenge it correctly, always allowing the federal government to dictate terms and assumptions. I'm sorry you were taught poorly, but that also has been affected by the WoD. They teach you one perspective to look at laws under, while denying you the vision of the whole thing. No one seems to realize there is such a thing as jurisdiction any more, they just accept what the federal government tells them.So if you decide you prefer the federal government crack down on the illegal tomatoe market, continue accepting the presumption. As for me, I like my tomatoes without a side order of bad perspective.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by el_toonces on November 15, 2001 at 06:23:38 PT:
Sorry, John....
but the commerce clause does not work that way as one learns in introductory first year Constitutional Law. The question is not if any specific operation -- be it the cannabis club or a racist barbeque restaurant serving pork in the segregationist South in the 1960's -- is affecting interstate commerce but whether ALL commerce in cannabis (or pork if you look at the early civil rights cases attacking racist southern states) CAN AFFECT interstate commerce..........In effect, the efforts to use the interstate commerce clause to advance civil rights stretched the clause to encompass almost any economic activity as that was seen as the only way to fight state sovereignty being used for evil racist purposes. Now, the efforts made by those of us who loved freedom back in the 1960's have come back to bite us on the ass. However, the conservatives are also hypocritical in applying the commerce clause: the court said the federal law restricting handguns within school zones does not affect interstate commerce, which the liberals disputed, but now the court wants to abandon the "pro-states rights" position it has used in the past to advance conservative agendas (e.g., the school zone gun case, striking down the federal law allowing rape victims to sue state institutions that might have contributed to their attack, and now de facto invalidating Prop. 215, et alia).The commerce clause has a history of being abused for political purposes and it’s clear politicians -- except for libertarians -- don't mind until it comes home to hurt them.Hopefully, though, the feds are looking like jerks and the more they push, the better we look, the more attention we get and the more awareness we can raise:)El
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Silent_Observer on November 15, 2001 at 04:44:07 PT
Too much to hope for?
Lets hope public opinion turns this way too...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31711-2001Nov14.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by John Markes on November 14, 2001 at 22:39:44 PT
A Simpler Solution
There's a simpler solution to the problem with the cannabis buyers clubs. The answer lies within both the U.S. Constitution and the CSACongress has jurisdiction over interstate and international commerce, but not intra-state.Congress assumed jurisdiction, as stated at the beginning of the CSA, over illegal drugs at the intra-state level because in the illegal drug trade, it was impossible to distinguish between drugs from inter-state and intra-state commerce.The only valid way to fight this and win is over jurisdiction. It should be relatively simple for the several cannabis buyers clubs involved to show without a doubt that they were involved in a stricly intra-stae commerce affair. All marijuana used was grown within the state and was distributed within the state.By disabusing the federal government of the presumption over indistinguishability in intra and interstate commerces, they lose jurisdiction and have no grounds in court at all. No legal authority exists for their current actions. and the records seized will help prove this.I hope this helps someone somewhere...John Markes
ARDPArk
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by goneposthole on November 14, 2001 at 21:00:29 PT
Arresting the good Samaritans
The Government and the DEA are like the Pharisees who passed by the wounded and robbed man by the side of the road. Lots of officialdom to adhere to, too much great law to uphold; then they hunt down the good Samaritan and have him arrested. GO DEA, GO GOVERNMENT; MORE POWER TO YOU. BY THE WAY, DONT LET UP THAT STRANGLEHOLD ON THE GOOD SAMARITAN, HE JUST MAY GO OUT AND DO SOME MORE GOOD. GOD FORBID THAT SHOULD HAPPEN.  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by E_Johnson on November 14, 2001 at 20:41:56 PT
Attend the LACRC online vigil
Grab some protest energy here:http://superstringtheory.com/vigil/vigil.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by MikeEEEEE on November 14, 2001 at 18:12:03 PT
Reefer Madness Rebellion
There's no way the government can win this. Harassment never works."They're going after medical marijuana while the rest of the world is falling apart. If they had been doing what we paid them to do, then maybe we'd still have a World Trade Center."
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment