C
calbunn
- 84
- 8
1-13-12 Gov Brewers letter to US Dept of Justice where she makes it clear that unless this case is heard in a US Federal Court there is no safe harbor from prosecution of state employees who administer AMMA licensing.
If by 'restrictive permitting' you mean 'limited to one dispensary to every ten pharmacies' this bill does just that as a restriction under line item 20;It's these words "restrictive" that bother me, sounds the same as Don Duncan's A.S.A.'s "Restrictive Permitting" holding the grapes above your reach, yet close enough to keep you jumping to get it.
The campaign to legitimize what is called “medical” marijuana is based on two propositions: first, that science views marijuana as medicine; and second, that the DEA targets sick and dying people using the drug. Neither proposition is true. Specifically, smoked marijuana has not withstood the rigors of science–it is not medicine, and it is not safe. Moreover, the DEA targets criminals engaged in the cultivation and trafficking of marijuana, not the sick and dying. This is true even in the 15 states that have approved the use of “medical” marijuana.
On October 19, 2009 Attorney General Eric Holder announced formal guidelines for federal
prosecutors in states that have enacted laws authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. The guidelines, as set forth in a memorandum from Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden, makes clear that the focus of federal resources should not be on individuals whose actions are in compliance with existing state laws, and underscores that the Department will continue to prosecute people whose claims of compliance with state and local law conceal operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of the law. He also reiterated that the Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all states and that this guidance does not “legalize” marijuana or provide for legal defense to a violation of federal law.
While some people have interpreted these guidelines to mean that the federal government has relaxed its policy on “medical” marijuana, this in fact is not the case. Investigations and prosecutions of violations of state and federal law will continue. These are the guidelines DEA has and will continue to follow.
Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of factors above is not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal prosecution may be warranted.
Accordingly, in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, federal prosecutors are not
expected to charge, prove, or otherwise establish any state law violations. Indeed, this
memorandum does not alter in any way the Department's authority to enforce federal law,
including laws prohibiting the manufacture, production, distribution, possession, or use of
marijuana on federal property. This guidance regarding resource allocation does not "legalize"
marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any
privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or
witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter. Nor does clear and unambiguous
compliance with state law or the absence of one or all of the above factors create a legal defense
to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a
guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion.