DEA Raids Medical Pot Clinic in San Francisco Tonight

Despite statements by the Obama Administration to the contrary, the DEA has not stopped raiding medical marijuana dispensaries in California where medical pot is legal.

The DEA raided Emmalyn's clinic tonight.

A protest quickly organized outside the clinic. The DEA says:

DEA spokeswoman Casey McEnry told CBS 5 the documents regarding the raid are sealed, so the DEA was not able to give many details.

"The documents relating to today's enforcement operation remain under court seal. Based on our investigation we believe there are not only violations of federal law, but state law as well. As of now we are prohibited from releasing further details of the case. Items of evidentiary value were seized and no arrests have been made. The investigation is currently ongoing," said DEA Special Agent in Charge Anthony D. Williams in a written statement.

But CBS News reports two people were arrested.


The spokesperson for Americans for Safe Access responds:

"We're shocked that after the Attorney General has made repeated statements that raids on California medical cannibis dispensaries would be suspended that we are seeing a continuation of that policy," said Hermes.

"We call on the Attorney General to explain these actions by the DEA," he added.

< Motown Showdown Tonight on American Idol | Late Night: Tracks of My Tears >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I guess we prefer... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 09:15:50 AM EST
    the cartels get the business selling dirt weed, as opposed to domestically grown high quality cannabis being sold to willing customers and the money staying local.

    We're morons.

    Though in deference to my friend Pat, the DEA is doing what they were hired to do...tyrannize. It's the fault of Congress...they can make the DEA go away forever whenever they choose, provided Obama signs off....this is what Congress wants.

    Mr. Holder (none / 0) (#1)
    by eric on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:14:28 PM EST
    has to reign these people in.  It's tough, I know,  to control animals like cops, but he has to do it.

    rein (none / 0) (#4)
    by daryl herbert on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 12:01:11 AM EST

    The stated (none / 0) (#2)
    by Patrick on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:23:25 PM EST
    policy is to continue enforcement on establishments that violate both state and federal law.  Since all cannabis clubs violate state law, unless they comply with the caretaker doctrine, they are pretty much all open for enforcement action.   There was a thread on this a while back, and I think I can safely say I told you so.  

    No State or Local cops present. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 02:03:25 AM EST
    There are federal laws (none / 0) (#10)
    by Bemused on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 09:48:05 AM EST
     prohibiting the distribution or possession with intent to distribute marijuance (21 u.s.C. 841). As Patrick said, all the DOJ announced is that it would not actively enforce the federal law against the very narrow of class of licensed med marijuana clinics which comply with state law. that "safe harbor" won't apply under the stated policy if the clinic is not run completely compliant.

    Yes, it answers (none / 0) (#12)
    by Bemused on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 10:04:56 AM EST
     tthe question. the answer is that THERE ARE FEDERAL LAWS prohinbiting distribution and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. So, the DEA is not "enforcing state law" it is enforcing federal law.

      The polcy was simply a (probably non-binding, although a lawyer might raise estoppel issues) directive not to enforce FEDERAL LAW in the narrow class of totally compliant med marijuana clinics.


    DOJ (none / 0) (#14)
    by Bemused on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 10:47:16 AM EST
     is full of people with very good brains, many of them obviously also have law degrees.

      Given what I assume your position to be, you'd probably like the end results  better if it wasn't full of very competent lawyers.

      You seemed before to be confusing not liking an answer with there not being an answer. Many questions have answers many people don't like, but they are still the answers.

      The Justice Department still has to prove a case to get a conviction. People whose individual circumstances tend to establish  doubt that they did in fact violate federal law should, with competent counsel, be winnowed out early in the process (Feds hate to lose cases and the #1 way to ensure a good batting average is avoid trying the hard cases-- defense lawyers don't get that option in many cases).

      Even those who did in fact violate the statute, might succeed in getting a legal ruling dismissing the case on estoppel grounds (simply put that they were induced to rely on a government statement they would not be prosecuted and it's unfair for the government to renege). that's only going to apply for those who did in fact conduct themselves in manner a reasonable person would believe was encompassed within the announced "safe harbor."

       People who were distributing marijuana and not doing it in compliance don't have a very good argument that the government should be estopped from prosecutiong them. Their only hope is probably politics, which is the sort of thing people always decry when the politics go against their side but cheer when it goes in favor of their side.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#15)
    by txpublicdefender on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 03:06:18 PM EST
    I agree with you, Bemused.  All Holder promised was that the feds would not enforce the federal drug laws against individuals and businesses that were otherwise complying with the state laws that allowed for them to distribute to medical marijuana users.  If the cannabis club was not complying with the state law, then the DEA was going to still go forward with enforcing the appropriate federal laws against them.

    It's fine if people don't think that policy goes far enough.  Frankly, I agree.  I think the DEA should leave it up to state authorities to deal with those who are not in compliance with state law.  But, to the extent people are complaining that this raid is a violation of the announced policy, I think that is off base, at least at this point, where the DEA is alleging state laws were being violated.


    calm down (none / 0) (#17)
    by Bemused on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 05:40:22 PM EST
    Is the silly rudeness really necessary?

    My point was that if DOJ had unintelligent  people and bad lawyers the people busted would be in a better position.

      Don't let the clowns who served as political appointees in the DOJ during the last administration make you think that it is not well staffed with very competent lawyers at the career level.


    in case you hadn't noticed, (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 12:43:35 AM EST
    And since when is the DEA, a federal agency tasked with enforcing state law?

    pretty much does whatever it wants, whenever it wants. it hasn't really been accountable to anyone since its inception. the best thing that happen to the DEA would be for it to be abolished, entirely.

    Meanwhile, Minnestota (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 02:10:13 AM EST
    A medical marijuana bill passed the House Public Safety Policy and Oversight Committee 9-6.

    Voting aye: Republican Tim Kelly and DFLers Debra Hilstrom, Karla Bigham, Gail Kulick Jackson, Sheldon Johnson, Michael Paymar, Paul Rosenthal, Sandra Masin and Joe Mullery.

    Voting no: DFLer Kory Kath and Republicans Bruce Anderson,Tony Cornish, Steve Drazkowski, Paul Kohls and Ron Shimanski.

    The left hand doesn't know there's a right one? (none / 0) (#8)
    by SeeEmDee on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 07:28:40 AM EST
    I doubt it. The fallout from this cannot be anything but major; AG Holder had DEA head Leonhart on stage with him when he announced Obama's campaign promise to halt the raids on dispensaries was policy now...after she had apparently authorized the raids committed after his inauguration.

    For this to go through now, well, it was either blessed by The Sainted One, Hisself, or Leonhart (at the urging of her more fire-breathing drug prohibitionists) is trying to 'wag the dog' when it comes to national drug policy. Either somebody didn't get the memo...or they did, and wiped themselves with it.

    In any event, this is a warning to drug law reformers that they dare not sit back and hope that sanity will win the day when it comes to reform. 'Reactionary' forces are still at work, on the public's dime and time, actively working to undermine those reform efforts - as in Hatch Act violations by using public monies to defeat drug law reform initiatives - as those reform efforts directly threaten their paychecks, and those dependent upon them want nothing of the sort to take place. "Same old, same old...'