New MMJ Policy or More Hot Air?

This is the second time the Justice Dep. has issued statements that it no longer plans on busting patients and caregivers who are "clearly acting according to State law." They also have stated that they will be encouraged to go after those they feel are violating the law.

Am I the only one who is a bit disturbed by the language being used here? It sounds to me like it might almost wind up being up to the patient or caregiver to prove their innocence. They even talked about going after people who "lied to get their card." Now how can they determine that? Will they be forcing patients and their doctors to prove their illness?

Also, when are the cops ever convinced that people are "clearly" acting according to the law? In my experience, most cops and prosecutors feel it is their job to try to prove guilt and yours to prove your innocence.

This is a particular problem because in most States a MMJ card is an affirmative defense which means the burden of proof is on you and not the State.

It just sounds to me like the new guidelines are quite possibly a bunch of hot air. Until they pass legislation stating that the police must have some form of actionable knowledge of your wrong doings nobody is really safe. If all they need is probable cause, all they need to do is show that we are growing or in possession. It will then be up to us to prove that we are acting within state law. So, in the real world of the justice system, they can hall us to jail and take us to trial which is a seriously fucked situation.

Until they come out and say that no card holder will be arrested or harassed unless there is actual specific, actionable knowledge it is all just hot air. It is as if Holder is saying, if you can prove you aren't doing anything wrong we won't charge you.

See NORML's response below

Cal NORML Release - "New" Federal Policy Leaves Major Questions Unanswered

Although it is certainly encouraging that the Obama administration has committed to writing the AG's declared policy of respecting state medical marijuana laws, the proof will be in the pudding. On careful reading, the policy has major loopholes that give prosecutors broad discretion to determine what they think is legal http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/medical-marijuana.pdf

Just a week ago, federal prosecutors in San Diego flouted state law by filing charges against a pair of San Diego dispensary operators, James Dean Stacy of Movement in Action in Vista and Joesph
Nunes of Green Kross. In both cases, DEA agents with doctor's
recommendations made small controlled buys of a few grams of medical marijuana. Neither case would normally have merited federal attention, were it not for San Diego's efforts to pursue medical marijuana providers. Whether their actions were actually illegal under state law was a matter that should properly have been decided in state, not federal, court.

Last August, two Lake County defendants, Scott Feil and Tom Carter, were likewise indicted on federal charges for medical marijuana offenses in apparent disregard of the AG's earlier statements.

The new Obama policy has glaring loopholes, emphasizing that "prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and ... it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those
who are without a doubt in compliance with state law. " The salient
question is, who decides what is 'without a doubt' in compliance with state law? As shown by the recent statements of LA's DA and City Attorney, there exist significant doubts about the legality of most dispensaries in California.

It remains to be seen how far the administration's new policy guidelines will go to prevent further abuses. What is really needed is fundamental reform of federal laws and regulations.

- D. Gieringer, Cal NORML

Captainkush, this echos my thoughts exactly.

The phrase "it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law," is highly disturbing. The standard ought to be that prosecutors should proceed with prosecution only when there is clear evidence that people are not in compliance.

I have a sneaking suspicion that authorities are about to begin a major crackdown of caregivers they believe might possibly be non-compliant which means everyone. I'm sure they would like nothing more than to produce a large number of "we told you so" arrests. Of course this would also provide further evidence for the need to employ more drug agents.

See, we should all realize that the justice system loves crime, because crime to them means job security. It means job security for the cops, the judges, the prosecutors and even for the defense attorneys who are frequently relatives or friends of the aforementioned.

All this is par for the course in the world of Obama - empty rhetoric, empty promises and ineffective policies. But hey, as long as he looks good that's all that matters.

I don't get in to politics because regardless of who is in office, the US drug policy needs serious overhaul.

That being said, I will now explain the central problem. The central problem is that MMJ states, by and large, do not have clearly defined, statewide guidelines for MMJ patients, caregivers and dispensary operators. Without clearly defined guidelines at the state level, MMJ patients etc cannot be in compliance. I will give an example...in the city I live in, I am allowed 6 mature, 12 immature plants, this is in compliance with state guidelines...however, my COUNTY guidelines state I am allowed up to 33 plants or 100 sq feet of canopy. Things like this make it difficult to be in compliance, especially when this type of inconsistency is RAMPANT.

CK