Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Pot Bust Flip-Flop in LA; Obama & Holder Must Clarify RxPot Policy Now

Posted by Phoenix Woman, Firedoglake at 8:37 AM on March 9, 2009.


The United States Attorney for Los Angeles is confusing his staff with contradictory memos about medical marijuana busts.
marijuana11

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Phoenix Woman in your
mailbox!

 

Via Jeralyn this morning, I learned that the United States Attorney for Los Angeles, Thomas P O'Brien, spun his wheels and confused his staff with a contradictory set of memos about medical marijuana busts.

The U.S. attorney in Los Angeles sent a confidential memo to prosecutors last week ordering them to stop filing charges against medical marijuana dispensaries, then abruptly lifted the ban on Friday, according to sources familiar with the developments.

Stop filing charges? Don't stop filing charges? What kind of confusing switcheroo is that?

In addition to being told to stop filing new cases, prosecutors were instructed to refrain from issuing subpoenas or applying for search warrants in pending cases, said the sources, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

In fact, a few hours after the memo was circulated, [Christine Ewell, head of the U.S. attorney's criminal division] sent out another e-mail admonishing prosecutors not to discuss the contents of the memo with anyone outside the U.S. attorney's office, the sources said.

No more subpoenas!  Stop those search warrant applications right now!  Pending cases must be dropped!  And, especially:  do not discuss this memo with anyone outside this office!

And then, on Friday, in a stunning about-face, an order came down to re-open the cases that were set aside:

 

Another e-mail came out Friday instructing prosecutors to resume work on medical marijuana cases. Despite the reversal, news of the temporary ban is likely to spark interest amid the ongoing national debate over medical marijuana. Thirteen states, including California, allow for the cultivation, use and sale of doctor-prescribed medical marijuana under certain conditions, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, an organization that supports the legalization of the drug. Federal law, which trumps those of the states, bans the drug altogether.

As a result, operators of dispensaries in California and elsewhere who maintain they were operating under state law have been raided by the Drug Enforcement Administration and charged under federal drug laws.

Of course, the mixup may come from the top of the Department of Justice, where Eric Holder addressed the issue at the end of last month at a press conference, in a flip and offhand manner that could have confused underlings:

Attorney General Eric Holder said at a press conference Wednesday that the Justice Department will no longer raid medical marijuana clubs that are established legally under state law. His declaration is a fulfillment of a campaign promise by President Barack Obama, and marks a major shift from the previous administration.

After the inauguration, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) continued to carry out such raids, despite Obama's promise. Holder was asked if those raids represented American policy going forward.

"No," he said. "What the president said during the campaign, you'll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we'll be doing in law enforcement. He was my boss during the campaign. He is formally and technically and by law my boss now. What he said during the campaign is now American policy."

"You'll be surprised to know??" As it turns out, Mr Holder, we would be surprised to know that United States attorneys are following the policy laid out by Barack Obama during the campaign. Because one of them, in Los Angeles, is not. We would be surprised to know that what Barack Obama said during the campaign is now American policy.

Because, at least within the jurisdiction of the United States Attorney for Los Angeles, it's not.

I know you've got a lot on your plate, Mr Attorney General, but sending clear and unambiguous instructions on policy, without a smirk and clever innuendo, might be a better way to direct your department. Certainly, a clear policy statement from you, or from the President himself, on raids, arrests and prosecutions of patients and their providers, would avoid the kind of embarrassing about-face the US Attorney's office was subjected to this week in Southern California.

Even if nobody was supposed to talk about it.

Digg!

Phoenix Woman is a regular blogger for FireDogLake


Franken vs. Coleman Update: A Ruling!
... but not the one we've been waiting for.
April 12, 2009.
Al Franken vs. Norm Coleman: Update
More little news bits as we wait for the Election Contest Court's rulings.
March 21, 2009.
Coleman-Franken Update: It's Over (the Trial, That Is)
The trial part of Norm Coleman's contest of Al Franken's certification as the winner of the 2008 election for Norm's old Senate seat is now over.
March 14, 2009.
Competence Finally Returns to FEMA
After seeing the once-proud FEMA devolve into a turkey farm under Bush, it's so nice to see it coming back to its former glory.
March 5, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
message
Posted by: paganpat on Mar 9, 2009 1:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let us all send a message:" We are all mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore". Mexico is sending just this message and the Narcs and those in charge are not liking it one bit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» war Posted by: sopomike
Stupid Czar's!
Posted by: johnbradleycopeland on Mar 10, 2009 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America has one too many Czar's! How much longer is America going to tolerate a government hell bent on wasting billions of dollars fighting pot. America is NEVER going to stop smoking and growing pot no matter what the government does. save the children; please what bull crap. american children are being drugged by their own parents with pharmaceuticals which are far worse than pot. pot should be legalized and taxed. hemp should become a new source for thousands of products; europe is far ahead of the us in the use of hemp and going green. why must we always be "last" now when making improvments in our country?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stupid Stupid Stupid Posted by: That_SOB
REALITY OF HEMP
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Mar 10, 2009 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Google this for reality and what the U.S. is missing:

http://www.evo.com/content/rawganique/
45403/organic_european_hemp_rope

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What probably happened
Posted by: Alan8 on Mar 10, 2009 12:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marijuana threatens the profits of the alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical, and textile industries.

This is not just a powerful corporation, and not just a powerful industry; it's many, many powerful corporations.

What probably happened is that powerful, corrupt corporations put pressure on corrupt politicians in the Obama Administration to harass marijuana suppliers.

This makes a mockery of democracy, but what else can you expect from political parties FINANCED BY for-profit corporations?

The Green Party doesn't accept ANY corporate money, and has been for the legalization of marijuana from the beginning. Who did you vote for?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Talon says. . .
Posted by: Talon on Mar 14, 2009 9:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Get your facts straight: "Federal law, which trumps those of the states, bans the drug altogether."
Wrong!!
Otherwise, what's the point of state law?
If federal law trumps states, then why have state law at all?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]