cannabisnews.com: LACRC Members Go on Hunger Strike
LACRC Members Go on Hunger Strike
Posted by CN Staff on June 12, 2002 at 09:11:45 PT
By Kevin Butler
Source: Los Angeles Independent
As part of a wide crackdown on medical marijuana programs, the U.S. Department of Justice moved on May 31 to seize the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center's real estate assets under federal anti-drug laws, prompting the center's leaders to begin a hunger strike.Federal authorities are seeking the property, which was financed partly by Wells Fargo Bank and the City of West Hollywood, as part of an ongoing criminal probe into the center's activities. Federal law says the government can seize any assets gained from trafficking in banned drugs.
"For one reason or another, we've been specifically targeted," says Scott Imler, the center's president. "I don't know why, other than that they can't understand that anyone would know that patients could be provided marijuana in a way that doesn't compromise public safety."The LACRC was founded shortly after the 1996 passage of Proposition 215, which let severely ill patients grow or use marijuana with a nod from their doctors. But the U.S. Supreme Court later effectively killed the measure, ruling last year that "medical necessity" couldn't justify exceptions to federal drug laws.The LACRC, which grew and handed out marijuana to 960 sick members, owns a building and a lot along Santa Monica Boulevard and is trying to sell the property to repay its loans. The federal government aims to seize the property's equity."We say they are violating federal law," says Thom Mrozek, a Justice Department spokesman. "We haven't made any criminal findings yet. We are investigating the matter, and we'll see what happens."The latest federal action comes seven months after the Drug Enforcement Agency raided the center and took bank records, computers and $55,000, leading the group to stop distributing marijuana and confine itself to legal activities like education. The courts have placed a stay on that asset seizure pending any criminal charges.Imler says the center plans to fight the action in court and will request a civil jury trial."We're doing our best with our attorneys, both criminal and civil attorneys, to file the necessary papers to challenge this, to lay the groundwork for whatever litigation we'll find ourselves in," he says.Imler and other activists began a hunger strike last Wednesday to protest the federal action and held a vigil at the site."We intend to maintain the fast and vigil until this situation is resolved," he says. "I guess you could call it our summer of resistance."The city, which stands to lose $350,000 in loans to the center if the property's equity is seized, reacted angrily to the action, saying Washington is persecuting ill patients."We followed the will of the voters of California, and what we're seeing instead is that we are being treated by the DOJ like we're the equivalent of Colombian drug lords," Councilman Jeffrey Prang says. "And I don't think that the asset forfeiture law was ever envisioned or anticipated to be used in the manner in which they are applying it."The city has "no intention of rolling over" and is weighing legal action, Prang says.Councilman John Duran, who is a lawyer for the center, says he expects authorities to place a stay on the seizure until any criminal charges are filed. There have been two grand jury hearings, but so far no indictments."We are waiting to see if the federal government is going to prosecute them for marijuana growing or distribution," Duran says."In this post-September 11 world, when we have so many real and true threats to domestic security, for the Department of Justice to prosecute very sick people with cancer and AIDS is just outrageous," he says. The Justice Department is merely enforcing the law, Mrozek says."There are strong beliefs in relation to this, but the viewpoint of the United States is that the manufacture or cultivation and distribution of a narcotic like marijuana is illegal, period," he says. "And the government has listed marijuana as a Schedule One drug."And if there's an argument to be made about the listing, that should be made with the people in Washington who make policy, and not with law enforcement agencies that are sworn to uphold the law," Mrozek says.The Justice Department's legal move follows a similar action taken against an Oakland cannabis club.Source: Los Angeles Independent (CA)Author: Kevin Butler Published: June 2002Copyright: 2002 Los Angeles Independent Newspaper GroupContact: editor laindependent.comWebsite: http://www.laindependent.com/Related Articles & Web Site:LACRC http://www.lacbc.org/Feds Move To Seize LA Cannabis Resources Center http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13081.shtmlCalif, US Medical Marijuana Laws Clash http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13058.shtmlCannabis Center Members Try To Carry On http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12854.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #8 posted by Hope on June 13, 2002 at 10:30:37 PT
The narcs are now acting just like the addicts --
E. Johnson, May I have your permission to use, "The narcs are now acting just like the addicts -- stealing to support their habit." in my letters and rebuttals?It's been my opinion for some time, but I was never able to articulate it that well. I knew they were "stealing" to make sure they were "state of the art" and I realized law enforcement organizations are addicted to forfeiture and the drug war, but I never thought of comparing it to the addict who will steal to fulfill his monetary needs. Very good!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by goneposthole on June 12, 2002 at 18:42:37 PT
The feds could care less if they go hungry
They will just die sooner, and get the Bobby Sands award.The government would consider it a victory.Pray for the government's sorry ass. They're Schedule One a$$hole$.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by FoM on June 12, 2002 at 10:32:20 PT
p4me
I went ahead and posted the DEA Press Release. Why no articles in the main stream press about this? That really bothers me. How can they decided it doesn't have medicinal value and keep it in Schedule I? It DOES have many medicinal benefits! It Does! Don't they read?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by FoM on June 12, 2002 at 10:15:53 PT
p4me
Thanks for the news. I haven't seen one article on this yet. I could post the article and use the DEA as the source. I'm trying to figure out how I can do this. Maybe we need to send the DEA announcement to people who write about mj reform. I'm not sure.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by p4me on June 12, 2002 at 09:51:22 PT
This is big
There was a appeals court decision on May 24th that had no ruling because the plantiff was not a MMJ user. The case challenged the inappropriate classification of MJ as a Schedule 1 Narcotic. The judge threw it out because of the validity of the plantiff and made no ruling whatsoever on the classification issue. Richard Cowan did commentary on the subject: http://www.marijuananews.com/news.php3?sid=532
The ruling came on May 24th and was put up on the DEA website on June 6th to oppose the protest in front of the DEA offices. It is really quite unbelievable that someone that makes a living as a journalist does't knock these lies out of the stadium. Here is the pitch from the DEA website: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr060602.html News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 6, 2002 HIGH COURT UPHOLDS MARIJUANA AS DANGEROUS DRUG The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling on May 24,
2002, upholding DEA's determination that marijuana must remain a schedule I controlled substance.
The Court of Appeals rejected an appeal filed by High Times Magazine and Jon Gettman, who
contended that marijuana does not meet the legal criteria for classification in schedule I, the most
restrictive schedule under the Controlled Substances Act. DEA Director Asa Hutchinson stated: "This is an important ruling because it leaves in place a sound
decision made by DEA, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), that there is no basis to remove marijuana from schedule I. Current medical and scientific
evidence continues to demonstrate that marijuana has a high potential for abuse and no safe and
effective medical use." Mr. Gettman petitioned DEA in 1995 to remove marijuana from schedule I. Under the Controlled
Substances Act, schedule I substances must meet three strict criteria. These substance must
have: no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, a lack of accepted safety for use
under medical supervision, and a high potential for abuse. Mr. Gettman and High Times Magazine
sought through their petition to move marijuana to a schedule where it may be prescribed by
physicians for medical use. Director Hutchinson explained the importance of accurate drug scheduling: "Drugs sold lawfully in
the United States are the safest in the world. This is because our nation, through its laws, insists on
careful deliberation before allowing drugs to be sold as medicine. To date, marijuana does not meet
the scientific requirements." In accordance with Federal law, DEA referred the petition to the HHS for a scientific and medical
evaluation. After conducting an extensive evaluation, the FDA advised DEA that current scientific
and medical evidence demonstrates that marijuana continues to meet all three statutory criteria for
placement in schedule I. DEA agreed with the HHS's conclusions and denied the petition to reschedule marijuana saying that
the evidence overwhelmingly leads to the conclusion that marijuana has a high potential for abuse.
DEA's denial of the petition, along with the complete details of the medical and scientific findings
made by DEA and the HHS, were published April 18, 2001, in the Federal Register (volume 66, page
20038). Following DEA's denial of their petition, Mr. Gettman and High Times Magazine appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit rejected the appeal on May 24,
2002, holding that Mr. Gettman and High Times Magazine lack standing to appeal under the United
States Constitution. The Court's ruling lets stand DEA's denial of the petition to reschedule
marijuana.
1
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by E_Johnson on June 12, 2002 at 09:49:07 PT
Naive statement of the year
"We followed the will of the voters of California, and what we're seeing instead is that we are being treated by the DOJ like we're the equivalent of Colombian drug lords," Councilman Jeffrey Prang says. "And I don't think that the asset forfeiture law was ever envisioned or anticipated to be used in the manner in which they are applying it."Well I wouldn't be too sure. This is giving them too much credit.I remmeber it was the narcs who wanted asset forfeiture because they were angry that drug dealers were able to afford lawyers to represent them in court.Asset forfeiture started as a way to subvert due process for drug defendants.That's why they wanted to seize without a conviction, so they could take everything a person owned BEFORE they went to court, so they couldn't afford to hire decent legal representation.This is all so horribly ironic. I had a coke addict roomate once and she had her own asset forfeiture plan. She would seize my stereo and give it to her dealer.The narcs are now acting just like the addicts -- stealing to support their habit.Asset forfeiture law was never envisioned as anything with any higher moral purpose than that. It's just had better political dressing put on it over the years.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by E_Johnson on June 12, 2002 at 09:33:13 PT
Who wants this case? Nobody but Ashcroft
"We say they are violating federal law," says Thom Mrozek, a Justice Department spokesman. "We haven't made any criminal findings yet. We are investigating the matter, and we'll see what happens."
This is governmentese. Please allow me to translate back into English:"Our boss man John Holy Fucking Shit Ashcroft wants these people exterminated without mercy. We on the other hand have our own careers to think about, and we think prosecuting Imler is going to be political suicide for anyone involved. So here in the DOJ, we're all smacking each other around really hard to see who wins. When we finish smacking each other around, we'll let you know what we've decided to do."I mean really, any US Attorney who has to prosecute Imler is lokking at a thankless task that could indeed be his political death.If the prosecutir wins, he'll be doing something that he knows is not right, and he knows the local political system will punish him hard and deep for it, because he sent a bonafide local hero to prison for a 20 year mandatory minimum sentence.If the prosecutor loses, he will be tagged with the reputation of having allowed the floodgates of medical marijuana to burst open, because if they prosecute Imler and lose, forget the Supreme Court ruling, medical marijuana is going to be undefeatable and the LACRC will be back in business.This is a lose-lose case for the US Attorney involved.Whether he wins the case or loses it before a jury, he's going to be screwed by this prosecution for the rest of his career.This has to be generating a lot of concern within the DOJ.By concern I mean fear and loathing.Hey where is Hunter Thompson when we need him? Drunk I spose.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by idbsne1 on June 12, 2002 at 09:21:43 PT
Go West Hollywood...
Sue the fuckers. When the media gets a hold of a City suing the Federal Government, they might even talk about it. idbsne1
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment