U.s. Attorney: Why I’m Busting Harborside Health Center

[+EdwardGlen]

Guilty Until Proved Innocent...

 

U.S. Attorney: Why I’m busting Harborside Health Center

 

http://blog.sfgate.c...-health-center/

 

This from U.S. Attorney Melinda (sea) Haag in San Francisco:

 

On Monday, July 9, this office filed civil forfeiture actions against 1840 Embarcadero, Oakland, California, and 2106 Ringwood Avenue, San Jose, where Harborside, a marijuana dispensary claiming over 108,000 customers, operates.

 

This office has used its limited resources to address those marijuana dispensaries that operate close to schools, parks and playgrounds. As I have said in the past, this is a non-exclusive list of factors relevant to whether we should commence civil forfeiture actions against marijuana properties, and circumstances may require us to address other situations.

 

I now find the need to consider actions regarding marijuana superstores such as Harborside. The larger the operation, the greater the likelihood that there will be abuse of the state’s medical marijuana laws, and marijuana in the hands of individuals who do not have a demonstrated medical need. (reefer madness)

 

The filing of the civil forfeiture complaints against the two Harborside properties is part of our measured effort to address the proliferation of illegal marijuana businesses in the Northern District of California.

 

The way I read the statement, Harborside hasn’t actually done anything illegal (at least in terms of California law) that we can find. but because it’s big, it must be guilty.

[Celliach]

Read the next sentence after the one you highlighted.

The filing of the civil forfeiture complaints against the two Harborside properties is part of our measured effort to address the proliferation of illegal marijuana businesses in the Northern District of California.

Apparently they do think they were doing something illegal.

[cristinew]

Haag the worst thing to MM next to spider mites,,,, Nice to see you posting Edward

Edited July 15, 2012 by cristinew

[CaveatLector]

File this under the, "it could've been worse," column. We aren't hearing anything about federal criminal charges. And let's face it, they were thumbing their noses at the feds for quite some time with the whole "weed wars" tv show.

[cristinew]

And both actors were on the show,..

[pic book]

Thumbing? Advocating? Look here, on that basis most members of this board cud be facing forfeiture....Steve's one of NORML's greatest supporters, a perennial speaker at their conferences...so--guilty until proven differently.

[+Malamute]

Most people here arent selling over $20million dollars worth of marijuana perenially.

 

;-)

[AKenewell]

[Kingdiamond]

Limited resources she has to be kidding right ?

 

Exactly how much money was budgeted to run the drug enforcement agency this year im sure seeing that this is california that they were well funded by Leonhart and this is just trying to make them less like the monsters they really are to John and Jane public.

[+Malamute]

Hmmm... I hope they can beat this forfeiture.

 

I did notice the attorney parsed the DoJ memo(ogden etc.) as stating that "dispensaries that are not in compliance with state law".

 

As I/we have pointed out many times, that is not what the Ogden memo, or the proceding opinions(Cole Memo), have said.

 

It protects patients.

 

Anyhow, here is the Cole Memo. It is rather straightforward and i am not sure why so many are misinterpretting it. You can say it does not go far enough or isn't as much protection as Obama said it would be prior to election, but it clearly states that patients should be left alone; which is a monumental victory for us as cannabis patients.

 

I do hope Harborside figures out how to win though.

 

 

 

June 29, 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

 

FROM: James M. Cole

Deputy Attorney General

 

SUBJECT: Guidance Regarding the Ogden Memo in Jurisdictions

Seeking to Authorize Marijuana for Medical Use

Over the last several months some of you have requested the Department’s assistance in responding to inquiries from State and local government seeking guidance about the Department s position on enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in jurisdictions that have under consideration, or have implemented, legislation that would sanction and regulate the commercial cultivation and distribution of marijuana for medical use. Some of these jurisdictions have considered approving the cultivation of large quantities of marijuana or broadening the regulation and taxation of the substance. You may have seen letters responding to these inquiries by several United States Attorneys. Those letters are entirely consistent with the October 2009 memorandum, issued by Deputy General Ogden to federal prosecutors in the States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana (the “Ogden Memo”).

 

The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug that the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant source of revenue to large scale criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels. The Ogden Memorandum provides guidance to you in deploying resources to enforce the CSA as part of the exercise of the broad discretion you are given to address federal criminal matters within your districts.

 

A number of states have enacted some form of legislation relating to the medical use of marijuana. Accordingly the Ogden memo reiterated to you that prosecution of significant traffickers in illegal drugs, including marijuana, remains a core priority, but advised that it is likely not an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or their caregivers. The term “caregiver” as used in the memorandum meant just that: individuals providing care to individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses, not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana.

 

The Department’s view of the efficient use of limited federal resources as articulated in the Ogden Memorandum has not changed. There has, however, been an increase in the scope of commercial cultivation, sale, distribution and use of marijuana for purported medical purposes. For example, within the past 12 months, several jurisdictions have considered or enacted legislation to authorize multiple large-scale, privately-operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers. Some of these planned facilities have revenue projections of the millions of dollars based on the plant cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants.

 

The Odgen Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating. selling, or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law. Consistent with the resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution. State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financing laws.

 

The Department of Justice is tasked with enforcement of existing federal criminal laws in all states, and enforcement of the CSA has long been and remains a core priority,

 

Cc: Lanny Breuer

Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division

B. Todd Jones

United States AttorneyDistrict of Minnesota

Chair, AGAC

Michele M. Leonhart

Administrator

Drug Enforcement Administration

H. Marshall Jarrett

Director

Executive Office for United States Attorneys

Kevin L. Perkins

Assistant Director, Criminal Investigative Division

Federal Bureau of Investigations

[+Malamute]

MEMORANDUM FOR SELECTED UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

 

FROM: David W. Ogden, Deputy Attorney General

SUBJECT: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana

 

This memorandum provides clarification and guidance to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana. These laws vary in their substantive provisions and in the extent of state regulatory oversight, both among the enacting States and among local jurisdictions within those States. Rather than developing different guidelines for every possible variant of state and local law, this memorandum provides uniform guidance to focus federal investigations and prosecutions in these States on core federal enforcement priorities.

 

The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime and provides a significant source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. One timely example underscores the importance of our efforts to prosecute significant marijuana traffickers: marijuana distribution in the United States remains the single largest source of revenue for the Mexican cartels.

 

The Department is also committed to making efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources. In general, United States Attorneys are vested with “plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters” within their districts. USAM 9-2.001. In exercising this authority, United States Attorneys are “invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority.” Id. This authority should, of course, be exercised consistent with Department priorities and guidance.

 

The prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority in the Department’s efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the Department’s investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department’s core enforcement priorities.

 

Typically, when any of the following characteristics is present, the conduct will not be in clear and unambiguous compliance with applicable state law and may indicate illegal drug trafficking activity of potential federal interest:

• 
  unlawful possession or unlawful use of firearms;
  
• 
  violence;
  
• 
  sales to minors;
  
• 
  financial and marketing activities inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of state law, including evidence of money laundering activity and/or financial gains or excessive amounts of cash inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
  
• 
  amounts of marijuana inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
  
• 
  illegal possession or sale of other controlled substances; or
  
• 
  ties to other criminal enterprises.
  

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.

 

Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution where there is a reasonable basis to believe that compliance with state law is being invoked as a pretext for the production or distribution of marijuana for purposes not authorized by state law. Nor does this guidance preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests.

 

Your offices should continue to review marijuana cases for prosecution on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the guidance on resource allocation and federal priorities set forth herein, the consideration of requests for federal assistance from state and local law enforcement authorities, and the Principles of Federal Prosecution.

 

cc: All United States Attorneys

Lanny A. Breuer

Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division

B. Todd Jones

United States Attorney

District of Minnesota

Chair, Attorney General’s Advisory Committee

Michele M. Leonhart

Acting Administrator

Drug Enforcement Administration

H. Marshall Jarrett

Director

Executive Office for United States Attorneys

Kevin L. Perkins

Assistant Director

Criminal Investigative Division

Federal Bureau of Investigation

[AKenewell]

I think these memos contradict each other. Anyway here are some different views on them.. This one is from ACLU.

 

Obama DOJ Leaves Medical Marijuana Patients Sick and Suffering

 

 

By Scott Michelman, Criminal Law Reform Project at 5:30pm

On Wednesday, the Obama Justice Department issued a new memo to all U.S. Attorneys clarifying the DOJ's position on federal prosecutions of state-sanctioned medical marijuana use. It's not good news.

 

According to Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole, the new Obama DOJ policy states that only medical marijuana patients and caregivers should be left alone by federal prosecutors. But those who cultivate or distribute marijuana are fair game. Cole writes:

 

[p]ersons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities […] regardless of state law […] are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution.

 

This new policy is a complete reversal of the policy the administration outlined just two years ago. In 2009, the Obama administration boldly and wisely declared that the federal government would no longer bring federal drug-law prosecutions against individuals in compliance with state medical marijuana laws, including distributors and cultivators. This humane policy, known as the Ogden memo — named after David W. Ogden, the Justice Department official who authored it — acknowledged the reality that marijuana is currently providing relief for between 750,000 and 1 million patients with serious illnesses like cancer and AIDS in the one-third of states that permit its medical use.

 

The Ogden memo's inclusion of all state-compliant actors, not just patients, reflected the important practical fact that patients need to get their medicine from somewhere, and that prosecuting state-regulated distribution and cultivation systems, but not patients, leave patients with the legal protections they need but no actual medicine to relieve their pain.

 

What the Ogden memo recognized, in short, was that the war on drugs need not be a war on sick people.

 

The new policy outlined in the Cole memo is disastrous for patients and antithetical to public safety because it undermines efforts by states to set up carefully regulated distribution systems designed to help sick people get their medicine while preventing fraud and abuse. Exempting patients and caregivers while going after state-compliant suppliers will leave patients without a safe source for their medicine.

 

What is the government's message to these individuals, who rely on marijuana for unique relief? That patients should resort to black market drug dealers? That patients should go without their medicine?

 

Either alternative is unacceptable from an administration that has loudly proclaimed its fidelity to the principle that politics should not trump science. The Cole memo is pure politics: it reverts to a politically "safe" war-on-drugs ideology while ignoring the practical effects of the new policy and the harms to real individuals.

 

This week's sad development reminds us all that the rights of patients will not be fully secure until Congress changes the law to permit the use and regulated distribution of marijuana for medical purposes — thus placing patients' access to their medicine above the vicissitudes of politics.

 

 

http://www.aclu.org/...k-and-suffering

[AKenewell]

July 1, 2011

People in Compliance With State Medical Marijuana Laws Vulnerable to Prosecution

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

 

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today said a federal drug enforcement mandate outlined in a Department of Justice (DOJ) memo threatening with federal prosecution people who grow, sell and distribute marijuana under the auspices of state medical marijuana laws could deny patients who suffer from serious medical conditions access to vital medicine.

 

The memo, issued by Deputy U.S. Attorney General James M. Cole, claims it reiterates a 2009 DOJ memo issued by then Deputy Attorney General David Ogden stating that federal drug enforcement resources should not focus on people “whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the use of medical marijuana.” But Cole’s memo today makes clear that the only people for whom federal prosecution will be de-prioritized are patients and that everyone else involved in a rational and carefully calibrated system of state regulation is vulnerable to federal prosecution.

 

Cole’s memo comes several weeks after the ACLU sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking that he make clear DOJ will not prioritize the prosecution of people who comply with state medical marijuana laws – in keeping with previous DOJ policy. The ACLU sent its letter after several U.S. Attorneys across the country sent letters threatening to prosecute people in compliance with state medical marijuana laws, including state employees and state-licensed providers of medical marijuana.

 

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have enacted state medical marijuana laws. Today’s DOJ memo leaves these states with an untenable choice: to uphold the will of the voters and enact reasonable distribution schemes or bow to federal pressure and deny patients their medicine.

 

The following can be attributed to Jay Rorty, director of the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project:

 

“Patients who suffer from serious illnesses need safe and reliable access to their medicine without the fear of federal prosecution for them or their suppliers. The most tangible outcome of today’s memo will be that very sick people may be stripped of any legal avenue through which to access their vital medicine and needlessly and unconscionably left to suffer.

 

“States that have enacted medical marijuana statutes appear to be more concerned with public health than the federal government because states are taking every step to ensure that patients receive appropriate palliative care through regulated systems of distribution, whereas the federal government appears willing to allow patients to die in pain without appropriate pain relief.”

 

 

http://www.aclu.org/...ijuana-patients

[AKenewell]

Written by Anthony Johnson President of the University of Missouri Law School ACLU Chapter, Anthony co-authored the measures that legalized medical cannabis possession and decriminalized personal possession for all adults within the city limits of Columbia, Missouri. This article also contains the link to the ATF memo about MMJ patients not being allowed to purchase firearms.

http:/ /nationalcanna...resident-obama/

 

This is also interesting

http://www.azag.gov/...lMarijuana.html

 

And here's a liberal view on the two memos

http://www.talkleft....6/30/23213/0734

[+Malamute]

I dont need opinion articles to tell me what my 2 eyes can read for myself. The ogden memo was never meant to excuse "commercial" activities.

 

 

 

Ogden Memo:

 

As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department’s core enforcement priorities.

 

Cole Memo:

 

A number of states have enacted some form of legislation relating to the medical use of marijuana. Accordingly the Ogden memo reiterated to you that prosecution of significant traffickers in illegal drugs, including marijuana, remains a core priority, but advised that it is likely not an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law...

 

The Department’s view of the efficient use of limited federal resources as articulated in the Ogden Memorandum has not changed. There has, however, been an increase in the scope of commercial cultivation, sale, distribution and use of marijuana for purported medical purposes. For example, within the past 12 months, several jurisdictions have considered or enacted legislation to authorize multiple large-scale, privately-operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers. Some of these planned facilities have revenue projections of the millions of dollars based on the plant cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants.

 

The Odgen Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating. selling, or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Malamute

[+Malamute]

When they released this memo, most of us understood this was protecting patients. We even speculated that dispensaries would try to squeaze under the patients umbrella of protection. Which well, you can see how it turned out over the last few years.

[Restorium2]

The Ogden was to keep the dispensaries from eating caregiver/patient lunches. Nice follow though, I have to say. Justice is slow. And I'm still eating my own lunch, growing my own medicine.

[MightyMightyMezz]

Yeah, it's all for the good of the patients I'm sure; protecting us from those dastardly dispensaries. It has nothing to do with clipping the wings of the nascent Cannabis industry before it becomes an unstoppable juggernaut. Yay for Prohibition!

Edited July 16, 2012 by MightyMightyMezz

[Restorium2]

Yeah, it's all for the good of the patients I'm sure; protecting us from those dastardly dispensaries. It has nothing to do with clipping the wings of the nascent Cannabis industry before it becomes an unstoppable juggernaut. Yay for Prohibition!

Lil harsh, but yes, it has protected patients, in many states, from commercial interests that would interfere with their grow rights, among other things. Just look to Arizona for a stark example: A patient couldn't grow if they lived within 25 miles of the dispensary. But the Ogen Memo kicked that to the curb. It was a direct result of the memo that patients could still grow.

[MightyMightyMezz]

 

Lil harsh, but yes, it has protected patients, in many states, from commercial interests that would interfere with their grow rights, among other things. Just look to Arizona for a stark example: A patient couldn't grow if they lived within 25 miles of the dispensary. But the Ogen Memo kicked that to the curb. It was a direct result of the memo that patients could still grow.

 

That law was ill-conceived. I'm guessing this was an accidental benefit of the war on dispensaries.

[Restorium2]

This really needs some serious thought;

A law where a legal patient can't grow within 25 miles of a dispensary. Just think about it. It's real. A total monopoly. A total rip off.

[Restorium2]

That law was ill-conceived. I'm guessing this was an accidental benefit of the war on dispensaries.

No. It was no accident. That's almost funny.

[cristinew]

A law where a legal patient can't grow within 25 miles of a dispensary

 

MPP for ya

[MightyMightyMezz]

This really needs some serious thought;

A law where a legal patient can't grow within 25 miles of a dispensary. Just think about it. It's real. A total monopoly. A total rip off.

 

Wow, something we agree on. High five?

[Restorium2]

Wow, something we agree on. High five?

Been working on it.