10 Years in Prison for Legally Growing Medical Pot? The Feds' Insane Assault

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/10-years-prison-legally-growing-medical-pot-feds-insane-assault-perfectly-legal-activity

10 Years in Prison for Legally Growing Medical Pot? The Feds' Insane Assault on Perfectly Legal Activity



As President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign gears up for its final push, his Department of Justice (DOJ) is aggressively pursuing medical marijuana cases in direct contravention of earlier pronouncements on the issue. Federal prosecutors are taking advantage of election season politics by gambling that the White House will not stand in their way and appear to look soft on crime at this critical juncture. Their well-times aggression is just another example of gaming the system and ringing-up meaningless prosecutions which serve no purpose other than padding the resumes of federal prosecutors. It is far afield from their mission statement and self-professed duty to protect the public.

The latest victims of this nationwide attack were a father and son in Monroe County, Michigan, Gerald Duval, Jr. and his son, Jeremy. They were convicted at trial in a federal case that centered on their growing medical marijuana in greenhouses. Gerald’s sentencing hearing was held on October 1 in federal court in Detroit. USDJ David Lawson handed down a 10 year sentence of which 87.5% will have to be served before the senior Duval is eligible for release. In a sentencing memorandum, prosecutors claimed that the Duvals “shamelessly exploited” Michigan’s medical marijuana law to try and get around the federal prohibition on marijuana. The prosecutors’ memorandum recommended an even longer sentence of 16 years for the Duvals’ decision to follow the state of Michigan’s medical marijuana law.

The federal prosecutors on the case chose interesting language in their pleas for a lengthy sentence. Equating adherence to a state law with which they disagree to shameless exploitation speaks volumes about the legal wrangling in which the prosecutors are engaging. The fact that the defendants were operating lawfully under the Michigan medical marijuana statute is completely removed from the equation. In almost all of these cases, jurors are prohibited from hearing any testimony regarding the laws of the state. The defense may not raise the issue because, in short, the state laws are not a valid defense upon which the accused can rebut the federal charges. That the accused believed they were in full compliance with state law and unaware of a conflict with federal drug statutes is of no moment. All the jurors are permitted to hear is the various ways the defendant violated federal law. The accused’s strict adherence to the state’s medical marijuana law is deceptively omitted from the proceedings.

“The Duvals’ case is another tragedy from President Obama’s war on medical marijuana,” said Steph Sherer, Executive Director of Americans for Safe Access (ASA), a leading medical marijuana advocacy group. “This type of enforcement is unnecessary and far from the public health approach that medical marijuana patients deserve.” A press release from ASA cites the fact that accused medical marijuana caregivers have “no chance of defending themselves against federal law.”

[Le Taz Hot]

1. The first paragraph

says it all. And I'm supposed to ENTHUSIASTICALLY vote for this guy and never ever question anything he does.

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. Get over it

Just because something is legal on the state level doesn't mean that it is legal. Remember segregation? It was legal on the state level, but the feds made it illegal.

[progressoid]

6. Yeah. Just like gay marriage.

Like how the President supports state's rights for gay marriage, he also supports state's rights for MMJ...

Oh, wait.

Nevermind.

[Le Taz Hot]

7. Don't think I will

but thanks anyway. Real people's lives are being affected, make that devastated, by these actions which Obama apparently approves else they and Holder wouldn't be doing it. Parse it however you please but ALL of these crackdowns are originating with the feds.

[bahrbearian]

10. +1

[piratefish08]

9. of course he said this in a campaign. so it doesn't count.

"I think the basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that's entirely appropriate," Obama said. "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue."

[girl gone mad]

37. WTF?

Millions of lives have been systematically destroyed over a mild hallucinogen which the government arbitrarily decided to criminalize and your response is "get over it"?

Good lord, how lame.

[frylock]

38. fuck that shit..

get over it?! people are rotting in prison over this shit, and your response is get over it. unfuckingbelievably callous.

[OldDem2012]

14. Your alternatives are voting for Romney, or not voting at all...

...So, what's it going to be? Can you imagine what the country will look like in 3-4 years under a Romney presidency?

[bahrbearian]

19. I got it ,,"quit your bitchin or it'll get worse"

[Blecht]

28. Translation

"You have no real choice -- It's either love everything President Obama does or shut the fuck up! Do you want President Romney!?!"

Black and white is all there is, don't you know?

[Le Taz Hot]

21. I'm in California and all of California's

55 Electoral College votes will be going to Obama. I'm not sure how that translates to "3-4 years under a Romney presidency" on my part.

[frylock]

39. yep, which is why i'll be voting my conscience this time around

[piratefish08]

23. are we allowed to have an opinion AND vote for Obama? or are we all just marching in line now?

[mike_c]

52. agreed, 100 percent....

Linda Haag is padding her resume in California by doing the same thing. The Obama DOJ does nothing to stop it. Piss on that.

[enough]

2. Why? (nt)

[FBaggins]

3. Obviously it isn't "legally growing pot"

Or is it the author's belief that a state law can trump a pre-existing federal law?

Interesting to watch it turn the normal states' rights support on its head though.

[bahrbearian]

11. With all the other crimes that go unchecked , we are picking MM as the whiping boy?

[FBaggins]

15. A reasonable complaint from a public policy standpoint... but not a reasonable defense.

"You let other people get away with worse!" isn't much of a defense.

In fact, from an equal protection standpoint, it would be a problem if the feds enforced this law in some states and ignored it in states that approved of MM.

[bahrbearian]

18. So you'd rather have the Feds go after pot (a victumless crime)

than send their resouces after real criminals, because we have to show the states whose Boss.

[FBaggins]

20. So you would rather debate a strawman?

Did I ever say that? Nope.

It simply doesn't change the fact that these defendants really don't have a leg to stand on. We're free to lobby the government to change the law, but we aren't free to say "you shouldn't enforce this one because you aren't doing a good job enforcing something else"... and they can't pretend (as the author claims) that they're going to prison for legal activity.

[piratefish08]

24. we're free to lobby and Obama is free to command his Justice department as well. And he is.

[FBaggins]

26. Of course.

But that doesn't change the fact that the OP is nonsense.

[bahrbearian]

25. The Dept of Justice doesn't have to pursue these cases, Legal or Illegal.

many state don't enforce the laws. Its not a straw man its reality. The straw man argument is "equal protection" .

[FBaggins]

27. Still confused on why you think that's relevant to the conversation.

Yes, they don't "have" to pursue these cases.

But the article isn't about that... the claim is that they're being prosecuted for legal actions. Not that the actions should not be illegal. And yes, it's a strawman to claim that recognizing that simple fact means that I would rather enforce this law than more significant ones.

[Romulox]

48. The relevance is the "law's the law" argument completely ignores that all prosecutors pick and chose

which cases to prosecute. To pretend that prosecution is a mechanical, automatic process is to be ignorant of the basics.

[Romulox]

45. OBAMA PROMISED NOT TO PROSECUTE PEOPLE OBEYING STATE LAW, REMEMBER?

It's like we live in an alternative reality, where people can just pretend away inconvenient truths...

"I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws [on medical marijuana]," Obama promised in 2008, according to an earlier Rolling Stone report.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/obama-marijuana-raids-rolling-stone_n_1451744.html

[FBaggins]

46. For the xth time... I get that.

It doesn't impact what I said at all.

This has nothing to do with whether or not it should be illegal or whether or not the feds should enforce that law.

It's entirely about whether or not the author was dishonest (he was) in claiming that people were going to jail for acting legally. It isn't a "fact" that they were "acting legally" and it isn't true that the jury was "deceived" by omiting issues that are irrelevant to the case. In fact it would be deceptive to pretend (as the author does) that the accused were "unaware of the federal statute" (which defies belief).

[Romulox]

47. LOL. The President controls the Federal Justice Department. Maybe you didn't know that.

The illegality ("scheduling&quot of marijuana is entirely within the discretion of the DEA, which also reports directly to the President.

So the President's policy in this matter IS the law. His policy is the prosecution of medical marijuana. There's no pretending this away.

[bahrbearian]

56. You using a Straw Man argument

[piratefish08]

5. the guy that made these statements?

“I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. It’s not a good use of our resources.” — August 21, 2007, event in Nashua, New Hampshire


“I don’t think that should be a top priority of us, raiding people who are using ... medical marijuana. With all the things we’ve got to worry about, and our Justice Department should be doing, that probably shouldn’t be a high priority.” — June 2, 2007, town hall meeting in Laconia, New Hampshire



“The Justice Department going after sick individuals using [marijuana] as a palliative instead of going after serious criminals makes no sense.” — July 21, 2007, town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire



But as usual, we only like to hold the 'other guy' responsible for campaign statements.......

[bahrbearian]

12. Good one . Hey look over there, its Rmoney and he is lying.

[Uncle Joe]

49. Perhaps this helps explain Obama's timidity in calling Romney on his lies during the debate?

The President had a problem making eye contact either with Romney or at the camera, maybe the President's conscious was/is bothering him on this issue?

In turn Romney felt he had a free pass to lie his ass off with impunity knowing the corporate media; for the most part could care less about the truth preferring to focus on style or body language instead of substance.

This could be a situation where flip flopping on this issue has come back to haunt Obama psychologically and politically for now with the possibility of hurting his hard won policies, should Romney prevail.

[progressoid]

8. I feel so much safer with these CRIMINALS behind bars!!11!

Not.

k/r

[porphyrian]

13. End the Drug War and take the profit motive out of the industrial prison complex. n/t

[piratefish08]

16. as long as we allow privately owned, publicly traded PRISONS with MINIMUM CAPACITY

requirements, this shit will not end EVER.

under ANY president. just follow the money.


actions speak WAY louder than words.

who does the Justice Dept. report to?

[CrispyQ]

29. One state lets the inmates work for corporations for free, in exchange for time off their sentences.

A double whammy on the American public! Get caught smoking weed, get hauled off to jail where taxpayer money pays private industry to make a profit on your incarceration. Then as an inmate, you work for free (or extremely low 'wages') & some other private company gets to make profit.

[piratefish08]

32. we use to call that slavery. not anymore.

[sorefeet]

17. JURY NULLIFICATION

If your ever on a jury and the word marijuana comes up, nullify. ESPECIALLY if the feds are involved.

[shanti]

22. yup

that's one way to get around this.

[Go Vols]

43. +1

[Tsiyu]

30. Obama has to win this time

but after the election, he can expect that many of us will be riding his ass about the MMJ issue.

Enough is enough.

Putting people in prison for growing medical cannabis is insane, and Obama can just plan on a full on assault of federal policy after November.

It's WRONG how the Justice Department is criminalizing sick people's desire to have the medicine that helps them the most.


Funny thing: a friend went before a Social Security judge not long ago. The judge asked about my friend's cannabis use ( this was in a backwash state that would rather penalize sick people than let them legally have cannabis ) and my friend told the judge she used it for her appetite and for her arthritis.

The judge said, "I appreciate your honesty. The fact is, most of the patients who come in front of me use cannabis to relieve their symptoms." He approved her for disability!

Now, if a Social Security judge can be that wise, what the fuck is wrong with the Justice Department?

[Romulox]

40. He promised to end this in his first term, remember? It was a straight up lie. Almost entrapment.

[occupymybrain]

31. I've heard....

Romney saying he would fight Medical Cannabis tooth and nail to repeal all state run medical programs in the country. That don't bode well with me. Obama will do better when it comes to this. Who knows he might come out for legalization in his second term never know.
I use MMJ so I am close to this subject. I don't like what the feds are doing not one bit, however there is not much just I can do. I do plan on voting for Amendment 64 in Colorado. Then we can see what the feds will do and go forward from there. I do believe Cannabis will be legal someday sooner than latter and it has to start somewhere.

[girl gone mad]

42. Too bad Obama has an actual record..

of fighting against Medical Cannabis tooth and nail.

Obama Administration’s Medical Marijuana Policies Now Worse Than Bush and Clinton Policies: http://stash.norml.org/obama-administrations-medical-marijuana-policies-now-worse-than-bush-and-clinton-policies

[occupymybrain]

55. I don't think that Obama has fought it tooth and nail,

if it was tooth and nail it would be gone period. It's not gone and yes we still have wrongful arrests but it will get better. Things will change no matter who is in the white house. The arrests will continue until the American people say enough. Obama lets mmj exist, Romney would just delete it. I'm full aware of the Clinton and Bush statistics. Though they did not have much to do with the medical cannabis as they came before it besides bush, who was too busy with wars could care less. Obama's record is what it is I don't see a absolute threat to MMJ. Just a thought.
I plan on voting for full legalization YES on 64. Oh and that is like in a few days I do that, so the way I see it is things are changing and fast now.

[4th law of robotics]

33. I cannot express how much safer I feel now. . .

[Savannahmann]

34. Interesting isn't it?

The one thing nobody has noticed is this. Why haven't the defense attorneys made this argument during closing arguments. The Jury system came from history, and was codified under English Law during the Magna Carta. This was to take a power away from the King. The King, or Government could accuse you of a crime, try you for that crime. But the King could not convict you of that crime. That power was reserved for the people, the peers we all know from the Bill of Rights. However, most people don't realize that the purpose of the Jury was never intended to simply decide had the person done the action accused, but was the law JUST, or Justly applied.

St. Augustine taught civilization that an unjust law, was no law. The second purpose of a Jury was supposed to be the question of Just Law. Was the law just, and was it justly applied. There are tens of thousands of examples of unjustly applied laws. From girlfriends who had no knowledge of the actions of drug dealers and who are serving decades because someone has to pay for it, to people who didn't know the action was a crime. The second most asinine phrase is Ignorance is no excuse. If you don't know what the rules are, it is impossible to follow them.

So the jury has the ability to return Not Guilty verdicts because the law is unjust, or unjustly applied. Yet a vast majority of the people who serve on Juries don't know this right. The example I gave the Judge when I was questioned about an example was pre Civil War. It was a Federal Crime to assist an escaped slave. To the best of my knowledge nobody was ever charged with that crime. However, I'd like to think that if I had been on a jury, I'd have found the individual not guilty of assisting someone who wanted freedom.

The Jury could find these people who are guilty of nothing more than growing Medical Marijuana not guilty because the law is unjustly applied. The defense attorney could argue for the jury to do just that. After a while it would become a cause celeb, in which Juries would joyously find the defendant not guilty because the law was unjust, or unjustly applied.

We the people have a grave responsibility as Jurors, not just to decide if the person did it, but is the Government right in prosecuting them?

[Le Taz Hot]

35. Don't you just love historical context?

Thanks for this.

[Savannahmann]

50. Yes, and it's imperative to have that before you can know what you're doing.

History is not just useless facts and figures. It is the fourth dimension that allows us to understand the complete picture. Everyone understand three dimensional views. It is what we all see every day. The fourth is time, which allows us to understand how A became B. How the ice sheet melting is a disaster, or how the jury is supposed to work.

It isn't merely to decide if person A committed the crime, but if it was a crime in the first place. I wish Judges would tell the juries this, or the lawyers would explain it to the Juries. Because without that historical context, our juries are deprived of one more lens to use in examining the situation before them.

[Hotler]

36. And the Wall St. crooks still walk free. Nothing to see her folks, move along. nt

[Romulox]

41. No excuse for this, but you have GOT to stay under the limit for Fed. jurisdiction, people! nt

[Romulox]

44. The worst part is, the application of the law is completely arbitrary. Dispensaries operate openly

in cities all over Michigan.

[Dawson Leery]

51. The DEA as never done anything for me.

Eliminate the DEA, save $3 billion a year.
Eric Holder is a horrible Attorney General.

[Eleanors38]

53. Been hearing and making many of these arguments for over 40 years...

The government institutions charged with enforcing prohibitions (while not particularly powerful when compared with other agencies) WILL NOT be dissuaded by ANYONE from carrying out their appointed mission: Hard, severe and callous punishment for ANY violator. And if the public sees it, even better.

This is a culture war which the Extreme Right of the GOP has placed great stock in. No conspiracy theory, no "hot button issue" (MSM-speak for "not important&quot . The Gingrich's, Delays, etc. of the 1990s GOPer "revolution" sunk deep foundations into promoting and entrenching solid hatreds against the Democratic Party and liberalism by pointing to the Counter Culture of the 60s. And the emblem of the Counter Culture?

A doobie.

Read the early theoretical underpinnings of the Far Right. It ain't "hot button" to them. It is fundamental. And they have cowed the Democratic Party on the W.O.D. issue since the late 70s.

The legalization fight must take lessons from others facing prohibitionist efforts: GLBT organizations and the NRA. They know best how to hit and keep hitting until smoke belches, the hulk goes dead in the water and starts listing. It's a hard, expensive, nasty campaign.

Thoughts from an old Lefty.

[GReedDiamond]

54. Two words: Jury Nullification...

...if ever I am called to sit on a jury in a "drug" case involving cannabis, medical or otherwise, I will use jury nullification to attempt to derail the prosecution's case.

This shit has gotta stop, it's bad for everybody except the assholes that operate prisons, especially the for-profit, privately operated prisons.