DEA should give back patient's pot

http://www.rockymountainnews.com ^ | 1.5.04

[freepatriot32]

Oh, it's good to be the king. You float high above the law and plunder your subjects with impunity.

Or so it seems in Routt County, where the local cops bring along a federal drug agent on their raids in hopes that his presence will immunize them from the sticky strictures of the Colorado Constitution. It's time someone told them they answer to state law, not the whims of a federal agent who happens to be hanging around.

Last October a drug "task force" of nine, count 'em nine, agents, acting on a tip and armed with a warrant, raided Don Nord's home in Hayden.

A major drug bust it was not. They came away with three marijuana plants, a couple of ounces of pot, some special lights and other growing equipment. They didn't arrest him; possession of that amount is a misdemeanor and they left behind a ticket.

They were not dissuaded in the least when Nord, who has suffered from cancer and diabetes, showed them a certificate saying he's registered in the state's medical marijuana program, which was established by a vote of the people in November 2000.

The ticket commanded him to show up in Routt County court Nov. 4. But the government somehow lost its copy of the ticket and Judge James Garrecht dismissed the charges. The district attorney's office could have chosen to refile, but declined to do so.

Kristopher Hammond, Nord's lawyer, then asked the county to return the marijuana and the paraphernalia. After all, the medical marijuana amendment specifically says that goods seized "shall not be harmed, neglected, injured or destroyed" while in the possession of law enforcement and must be returned immediately after acquittal, dismissal of charges - or a decision not to prosecute.

The judge gave law enforcement 21 days to return the marijuana and equipment. You might call it a writ of habeas cannabis. Some of the equipment was returned but the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency - one of whose agents had been in on the raid - said the pot had been shipped to its lab in San Francisco and would not be returned.

"Federal law supersedes state law and the federal government does not recognize the medicinal use of marijuana," said DEA spokesman Bill Grant with that effortless superiority the feds are so good at.

But Hammond complained that in fact there was nothing federal about the case. The warrant had been issued by a state judge. "The feds can't just steal the marijuana and therefore make it federal property," he said.

But they try, and they convince local law enforcement officials that even they don't have to obey Colorado law.

As Hammond puts it, "It's no secret that the federal government claims to be for states rights - until the states do things they don't like, such as enacting a medical marijuana statute."

He's asking the judge to cite the DEA with contempt. We hope the judge does just that. If he doesn't, or if the DEA brushes off the citation as if it were a gnat, perhaps Hammond should try again in federal court.

Even if it isn't found in contempt, the DEA is clearly guilty of violating the old mob dictum: "Never steal anything small."

[freepatriot32]

"The feds can't just steal the marijuana and therefore make it federal property,"

he should just get down on his hands and knees and thank god that they are our small goverment republican feds becasue that makes it all better after all if this was the clinton administration and the feds clearly violated state and federal law it would be bad but its republican feds so its all good

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
33	South Carolina	115.00	7	16.43	201	0.57	68.50	8

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[MarkL]

Due to this sort of nonsense, the state of Missouri actually sued the Kansas City, MO, police department.

There's a state law in MO that says any $$$ or property seized in drug raids by local, county, or state law enforcement belongs to the state, and that money goes into the state treasury.

On the other hand, if federal law enforcement, like the DEA, seizes money or other property, it's shared with local law enforcement.

What the KCPD was doing was running the investigation, making all the arrangements, then at the last minute, calling in the DEA to make the actual arrest, in order to get a share of the confiscated property. In effect, they were breaking the law in order to keep money from the state treasury.

Interesting, when the state has to sue a city over money, huh?

Mark

[freepatriot32]

ping

[BlazingArizona]

I wonder what would happen if this patient called Rush's show to tell this story?

[Land of the Free 04]

Due to this sort of nonsense, the state of Missouri actually sued the Kansas City, MO, police department. [...] What the KCPD was doing was running the investigation, making all the arrangements, then at the last minute, calling in the DEA to make the actual arrest, in order to get a share of the confiscated property.

So the feds are bribing local law enforcement to break state law. Marvelous. Where is the conservative outrage?

[zeugma]

It's all about the money boys! Always. This is something you can bank on.

[pawdoggie]

To the Liberals (re: this article): aint Federalism a b*tch? To the Libertarians/Anarchists: since an appeal to reason won't work, think of it this way: if the drug laws were all repealed tomorrow, the Liberals (as soon as the literal and figurative euphoria had worn off) would insist that all drug sales be taxed at exorbitant rates ("recreational" drugs = luxury taxes). Then they would want all drugs produced to meet Federally-mandated "safety" and "purity" requirements, once again driving up the cost of the now legalized drugs, as well as effectively "recriminalizing" home-grown drugs. Since the private sector cannot effectively guarantee the "safety" of the now legal drugs (as well as protecting the public from "price-gouging" by drug producers), the Left would insist that the Federal government take over the sale and distribution of the "legalized" drugs. Finally there would be the law suits (a la the tobacco settlement) and the special interest groups (like MADDD, "Mothers Against Drunken and Drugged Driving) to insure that the costs of the formerly illegal drugs exceed anything you might find on the streets today.