Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Prepare to be Outraged Tomorrow TODAY IN JUNE!: Charlie Lynch 's sentencing for running a legal medical marijuana dispensary in California is once again delayed.
The sentencing of Morro Bay, California medical marijuana dispensary owner Charles Lynch has been delayed yet again, this time until June 11. According to Reason.tv producer Ted Balaker, who has followed the Lynch saga from its start, the mood in the courtroom was guardedly optimistic, especially as Judge George H. Wu openly expressed his sympathy for Lynch.
"To be blunt, if I could find a way out, I would," said Wu, referring to mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines that insist Lynch get at least five years in prison. However, Wu summarily dismissed the notion of disregarding the guidelines, claiming it would simply be a "monumental waste of time" because such a decision would be overruled by a higher court. Reason.tv will post a video of today's proceedings soon. In the meantime, you can follow the case at Lynch's website, online here.
Above: Watch "Raiding California," Reason.tv's Drew Carey Project video about the Lynch case. Go here for iPod and HD versions and more.
UPDATE: Today, April 23, is the day of
reckoning not for Charlie Lynch but for the drug war—and for
learning whether the Obama administration will live up to its
statements regarding changing federal policy regarding medical
marijuana. Lynch's sentencing is scheduled to start at 3PM PT;
watch this space for breaking developments.
Charlie Lynch is a California resident who owned and operated a medical marijuana dispensary that was fully legal under a Golden State law.
In 2007, federal agents and San Luis Obispo sheriffs raided his home and dispensary and in 2008 he was found guilty in federal court of five counts of distributing drugs.
Because he was tried in a federal court, Lynch's defense team was not allowed to argue that its client was fully complying with state law.
On Thursday, April 23, 2009, Lynch is scheduled to be sentenced. He faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years and, despite some positive statements from the Obama administration's Justice Department about respecting state laws regarding medical marijuana, Lynch's future is darker than midnight. Indeed, the simple letter of the law dictates he go to prison.
The polite term for Lynch's predicament is Kafkaesque. He is a guiltless man who genuinely helped the sick in his community and is being punished for caring. Now he faces at least five years—and potentially much more—in one of the most sickening and barbaric displays of how the drug war is carpet-bombing huge swaths of American life. Indeed, to call Lynch's plight Kafkaesque is to hide the brutality of America's longest-running and most-destructive war behind an aesthetically comforting phrase.
Charlie Lynch's life has been destroyed by policies and priorities so idiotic and corrosive that they create or exacerbate every negative outcome they purport to address. It is the logic of bombing the village in order to save it raised to an exponential degree and all Americans who believe in the smallest doses of freedom, compassion, rule of law, personal autonomy, and federalism should bear witness to the horror of what has already happened and will likely be made still worse on April 23.
Reason has been following Lynch's story since it began. Below is a chronology and selected bibliography of our print and video coverage of Lynch and the monsters who have prosecuted him like some warped Inspector Javert.
We will be reporting live here on April 23, as soon as the Lynch verdict is announced.
Charles Lynch Chronology
April 1, 2006 ... In accordance with state and local law, Charlie Lynch opens Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers medical marijuana dispensary in Morro Bay, California.
March 29, 2007 ... Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents and San Luis Obispo County Sheriff deputies raid Lynch's home and dispensary.
April 7, 2007 ... Lynch reopens his dispensary with the blessing of the City of Morro Bay.
April 14, 2007 ... The DEA threatens Lynch's landlord with forfeiture unless he evicts the dispensary.
July 17, 2007 ... Federal agents arrest Charlie Lynch, and charge him with violating federal drug laws. Lynch spends three nights in a federal detention center before being released on $400,000 bail. Lynch is confined to home detention and monitored by federal agents.
June 10, 2008 ... Reason.tv exposes a national audience to the Lynch saga with the documentary short Raiding California: Medical Marijuana and Minors.
July 28, 2008 ... Reason covers day one of U.S. vs. Charles C. Lynch: Entrapment? Lynch Trial Update
July 29, 2008 ... Silencing Owen: Lynch Trial Video Update
"Jesse Baldridge": Lynch Trial Update
July 30, 2008 ... Earthquake in the Courtroom: Lynch Trial Update
July 31, 2008 ... Charlie Takes the Stand: Lynch Trial Update
August 1, 2008 ... Lynch Checked with DEA Before Opening Dispensary: Lynch Trial Update
August 2, 2008 ... The Penultimate Day: Lynch Trial Update
August 4, 2008 ... Waiting for the Jury: Lynch Trial Video Update
Charlie's Fate in Jury's Hands: Lynch Trial Update
August 5, 2008 ... GUILTY: Lynch Trial Video Update (includes exclusive interview with jury foreperson)
Charlie Lynch Found Guilty in Gross Miscarriage of Justice
October 6, 2008 ... Free Charlie Lynch Rally: Video Update
November 2008 ... Medical marijuana makes conservatives forget federalism
March 23, 2009 ... Fate on Hold: Will Charlie Lynch Spend Decades in Jail? (Video Update)
March 25, 2009 ... Will the Justice Department's new medical marijuana policy save Charlie Lynch?
April 20, 2009 ... Obama's DOJ Won't Intervene in Charlie Lynch Case
Not David|4.22.09 @ 5:29PM|#
Because he was tried in a federal court, Lynch's defense
team was not allowed to argue that its client was fully complying
with state law.
That sounds impossibly inaccurate somehow, but I'm not a lawyer and
Volokh seems unwilling to follow it. Are you sure that's the only
reason? Seems like bullshit supression unless there's some other
technicality missing.
Cool Cal|4.22.09 @ 5:30PM|#
I may be missing the forest for the trees, but I think that in addition to worrying about appearing soft on drugs, Obama may be even more worried that an intervention in this case might set a precedent that his administration is sympathetic to States' Rights ... and he can't have that.
SpongePaul|4.22.09 @ 5:32PM|#
yep thats the only reason, since it being legal in Cali has zero standing with federal law, did you know you also can not even mention jury nullification in a court of law,It wil get an automatic contmpt or mistrial, it is up to the jurour to know about it.
John|4.22.09 @ 5:43PM|#
In case you didn't know, marijuana is currently illegal, and
just so you know, the penalties are severe. It has been this way a
long time, and there is no way we are going back to the
unenlightened days before intoxicants were banned.
I am sure he knew that he was breaking the law, the law's the law
and it must be enforced as written.
Oat Willie|4.22.09 @ 5:43PM|#
"it is up to the jurour to know about it."
If you make it to the jury and are able to convince your fellow
jurors to nullify without using only the facts and the law as
applied rather than good judgement and common sense, be prepared to
undergo extensive scrutiny from the prosecuting attorney.
/NAL
|4.22.09 @ 5:44PM|#
This is such a sad story, a total injustice! How long and to how
many people are we as Americans going to allow this type of
punishment for breaking marijuana laws to continue? No one ever
truly cares what happens to our neighbors, as long as it's not
happening to them.
Land of the free, unless the gov. wants to prove a point or take
your property and money!
I wish I lived on the other coast so I could protest this
sentencing tomorrow.
Any DEA or anyone else connected to this, or anyone that could do
something to change the outcome of this sentencing but doesn't
should be ashamed, including Our great President!
I really, really like our President, but I'm steadily losing faith
in him, week by week, mainly because of this one issue!
The Wine Commonsewer (You can |4.22.09 @ 7:01PM|#
Meanwhile the President jokes with reporters about actually inhaling.
|4.22.09 @ 7:28PM|#
What Obama says and what he does are completely different things. He's a hand puppet manipulated by those who really call the shots, and it isn't him.
|4.22.09 @ 7:44PM|#
Let us see how many "brave" men and women in uniform will step up and protect the freedom of Mr. Lynch. How many "heroic" among those who serve and protect will honor the oath they all took to defend the constitution against all enemies, foregin and domestic, and shoot to kill the marshalls who refuse to release Mr. Lynch?
AB390|4.22.09 @ 8:23PM|#
If you live in California and favor legalizing marijuana for adults, tell your state representatives to vote for California Assembly Bill 390. Visit yes390.org
JB|4.22.09 @ 11:33PM|#
So when does Obama get sentenced to getting butt-fucked by someone other than his wife for being a retarded chimp?
|4.23.09 @ 1:06AM|#
Eh. I won't be outraged. The judiciary has completely lost its
balls to stand up to either the legislature or the executive.
Oh course, my dream is that the judge gives him a suspended
sentence and a $1.00 fine.
way to go \"good president\"|4.23.09 @ 3:57AM|#
obama will always be the shit end of the stick, he's here for fame and fortune, nothing more, nothing less.
MJ|4.23.09 @ 7:16AM|#
Too bad the California's congressional delegation has no one in a position of leadership to lead the fight in repealing federal laws making marijuana illegal.
|4.23.09 @ 11:45AM|#
UPDATE: Today is the day of reckoning not for Charlie Lynch
but for the drug war-and for learning whether the Obama
administration will live up to its statements regarding changing
federal policy regarding medical marijuana.
What is this suppose to mean. In what sense of the phrase will
today be "the day of reckoning" for the drug war? Looks like SOP
for the WOD to me. And haven't we already established that Obama
has shitcanned any hope for change?
I hope Lynch gets a lenient sentence, but every indication is he
will be another lamb sacrificed on the WOD altar.
|4.23.09 @ 11:54AM|#
The guy was found guilty before Obama took office. What exactly
do you want Obama to do? Have the team that argued it was a crime
to turn around and argue for a light sentence due to presidential
politics? That doesn't sound like a good idea to me for reasons far
beyond the medical pot issue. I think the prosectuion is total
bullshit, the commerse clause should not apply here.
The proper course of action if Obama, isn't happy with the
prosecution, is to pardon.
"""I am sure he knew that he was breaking the law, the law's the
law and it must be enforced as written.""""
Why would he think that? He was careful to follow state law. And
why would a reasonsable person conclude that growing pot for legal
use by citizens of California consistant with state law, with no
intent to distribute across state lines would be a federal
issue?
|4.23.09 @ 12:06PM|#
TrickyVic,
Read the time line. After his conviction, the judge postponed
sentencing specifically requesting guidance from the new
administration. Unfortunately the official Obama WOD policy is
business as usual.
|4.23.09 @ 1:10PM|#
Read the time line. After his conviction, the judge postponed
sentencing specifically requesting guidance from the new
administration. Unfortunately the official Obama WOD policy is
business as usual.
---
To add to that, the judge requested guidance from the DOJ, and the
DOJ wrote back saying directly that nothing in the new policy would
change anything. It didn't say that the crime occurred before Obama
took office, so they wouldn't get involved -- just simply that
nothing would change.
Tacos mmm...|4.23.09 @ 1:19PM|#
Eh. I won't be outraged. The judiciary has completely lost its balls to stand up to either the legislature or the executive.
But that would be judicial activism!
|4.23.09 @ 1:32PM|#
I am sure he knew that he was breaking the law, the law's
the law and it must be enforced as written.
John, I don't think you are the real "John" posting, but does that
"the law is the law" business include the 10th amendment? Or can we
just ignore that one and pretend the federal government trumps
state government, as if our government structure is that of a
pyramid with the feds on top?
|4.23.09 @ 1:38PM|#
How many drug using presidents does American have to elect before we find a nonhypocrite?
Joel|4.23.09 @ 3:30PM|#
How many drug using presidents does American have to elect
before we find a nonhypocrite?
Don't hold your breath.
|4.23.09 @ 4:05PM|#
bigbigslacker:
See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall
be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall
be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State
to the contrary notwithstanding."
|4.23.09 @ 6:25PM|#
i know it's only been twenty or so minutes but I was wondering if there's been any news yet
ktc2|4.23.09 @ 8:11PM|#
Yeah, I'm sure many of us are. It was supposed to be like 2 hours ago right?
|4.23.09 @ 8:36PM|#
The sentencing was delayed;
"Charles Lynch was scheduled to be sentenced Thursday, but the
judge delayed a decision until June 11 in federal court in Los
Angeles."
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12212236?nclick_check=1
Sally O\'Boyle|4.23.09 @ 8:57PM|#
Thank God. My total depression and disgust with the U.S. is delayed for another 6 weeks... Hopefully this is good news!!!!
|4.23.09 @ 9:47PM|#
The guy was found guilty before Obama took office. What
exactly do you want Obama to do?
Pardon everyone convicted under federal l;aw of non-violent
marijuana crimes.
Ain't gonna happen, I know. But you asked what I want.
Elemenope|4.23.09 @ 10:02PM|#
Thank God. My total depression and disgust with the U.S. is
delayed for another 6 weeks... Hopefully this is good
news!!!!
It seems like the judge is desperate to find a way to not send the
guy away for five years that won't be overturned by the appeals
courts.
Good luck to him but I don't think he'll be successful. This the
evil of mandatory minimums.
|4.23.09 @ 10:39PM|#
"However, Wu summarily dismissed the notion of disregarding the
guidelines, claiming it would simply be a "monumental waste of
time" because such a decision would be overruled by a higher
court."
Might as well try and force the issue. I say issue a sentence
equivalent to any time already served and let the federal
government argue that a mandatory minimum is mandatory.
Elemenope|4.23.09 @ 10:58PM|#
I say issue a sentence equivalent to any time already served
and let the federal government argue that a mandatory minimum is
mandatory.
That's an argument they would almost certainly win, so perhaps not
the best plan.
|4.23.09 @ 11:17PM|#
Yes, thank God I helped implement mandatory mins! All a you dope-sucking punks oughta be given five years just for cheering this thug on!
|4.23.09 @ 11:54PM|#
Perhaps Judge Wu's ultimate plan is to allow Mr. Lynch to live is natural life in peace and freedom, always awaiting a sentencing date that continually recedes into the future...
|4.24.09 @ 12:55AM|#
This the evil of mandatory minimums.
+1, Mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent crimes are a complete joke (and not a funny one).
JB|4.24.09 @ 3:11AM|#
Judge Wu, do what is right and ignore the law. Let other fools
override you and criticize them for it when they do.
Was Eliot Spizer prosecuted? If not, then not one person in this
country should do prison time for a victimless crime.
jtuf|4.24.09 @ 4:50AM|#
OK, you've convinced me. Obama should pardon Lynch. The marijuana march in New York City is coming up. There might be rallies in other cities that day too. They would be a great time to gather signatures for a petition to Obama.
|4.24.09 @ 5:25AM|#
Wu openly expressed his sympathy for Lynch.
Oh, cry me a fucking river. If the judge was so sympathetic for
Charlie Lynch, why didn't he let him defend himself?
I think we have a judge here who knows he's not on the side of
justice, and he's looking for someway to shift the blame.
-jcr
|4.24.09 @ 5:26AM|#
What exactly do you want Obama to do?
You do know the reason why the executive has the power to pardon,
right? It's so that he can act in the interest of justice, when the
courts have fucked up royally.
-jcr
|4.24.09 @ 5:31AM|#
In case you didn't know, marijuana is currently illegal, and
just so you know, the penalties are severe.
It's legal in California, and the Federal government has no
constitutional authority to override the decision we made at the
polls. It took an amendment to ban alcohol, and that amendment was
repealed. There is no authority in the constitution for the War on
Drugs.
-jcr
MJ|4.24.09 @ 6:56AM|#
John C Randolph,
Unfortunately, SCOTUS disagrees with you on constitutional
authority. I do not agree with their reasoning, but there it is.
The "it's legal in CA!" objection to the verdict against Lynch is
irrelevant, California has no legal standing to nullify federal
drug laws within its borders.
|4.24.09 @ 7:23AM|#
Unfortunately, SCOTUS disagrees with you on constitutional
authority.
I'm quite aware of how the supreme court has committed dereliction
of duty over the years, from the Dred Scott decision up to the
present day. This fantasy of the commerce clause granting power
over anything and everything we do is a New Deal innovation; it was
wrong then, and it's wrong now.
-jcr
BeesInTheBrain|4.24.09 @ 7:38AM|#
This may be a silly question but what in the California code makes it legal to cultivate and sell marijuana? The Compassionate Use Act only provides imunity to "the patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana"
John|4.24.09 @ 9:16AM|#
And why would a reasonsable person conclude that growing pot
for legal use by citizens of California consistant with state law,
with no intent to distribute across state lines would be a federal
issue?
Because the federal government is the supreme law of the land,
because the commerce clause grants the federal government authority
to regulate commerce between the states. Anything you do may have
some effect on commerce so is regulatable.
"the law is the law" business include the 10th amendment? Or
can we just ignore that one and pretend the federal government
trumps state government, as if our government structure is that of
a pyramid with the feds on top?
And is's not, see above. According to the CSA, because you can't
determine if drugs have crossed borders, it is assumed they have,
therefore is is subject to commerce clause regulation.
It's legal in California, and the Federal government has no
constitutional authority to override the decision we made at the
polls. It took an amendment to ban alcohol, and that amendment was
repealed. There is no authority in the constitution for the War on
Drugs.
Yes there is, the commerce clause. See the Wickard and Raich
descisions.
Do you really think we should return to unenlightened times when
intoxicants were legal. In case you didn't know, for moral reasons,
we need to punish people who use intoxicants severely.
|4.24.09 @ 9:53AM|#
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State
to the contrary notwithstanding."
JonAnonESQ, sure, but you have to have jurisdiction first. The law
will be the supreme law of the land, but it must be constitutional
first. A law cannot violate a constitutional amendment without
repealing the amendment. Isn't that right? (you can I tell I don't
do this for a living, can't you?!)
jtuf|4.24.09 @ 1:12PM|#
You guys bring up a rather fundamental legal question. Yes, the contitution is the supreme law of the land, but it must be interperated. The supreme court is the ultimate authority for interperating the constitution. Of course they will make mistakes, they are human. However, each of us would also make mistakes interperating the consition. In the interest of peace, we should not have each person interpretting the constitution himself and enforcing that interpretation with arrests and punishment. So, how exactly should a citizen respond when the supreme court misinterprets the constitution? Some options are obvious. Petitioning for a pardon, and petitioning for judges that correctly interpret the consitution when appointment time comes are definitely within a citizen's rights. So is electing politicians who uphold the constitution and who will pick judges that respect the constitution. If anyone suggests civil disobedience, I would ask for details about what type of civil disobedience is acceptable and what type is not acceptable.
jtuf|4.24.09 @ 1:31PM|#
Drug War Update: This Pro-Legalization youtube video came out today. Apparently there's a phone petition drive going arround to legalize marijuana. I don't know if it is the cause, but Senator Menendez's phone line and the White House phone line were both beyoung capacity when I tried to call.
jtuf|4.24.09 @ 1:53PM|#
There is some question about the legitimacy of the 973 polling phone number from the youtube video I linked to, however even if you don't call the 973 number, at least call your reps in DC. Here are the White House number (202-456-1111) and the Capital Hill number (202 - 224-3121). You can verify them at the White House and Congressional websites.
John|4.24.09 @ 2:30PM|#
Also, because of stare decis, any interpretation from any case must be followed forever.
|4.24.09 @ 3:08PM|#
Also, because of stare decis, any interpretation from any
case must be followed forever.
Is Dred Scott the reason Jessie Jackson could never become
president, yet Barack Obama could? (Obama not being the descendant
of a slave)
(you aren't really John though, are you)
|4.27.09 @ 6:22AM|#
Is Dred Scott the reason Jessie Jackson could never become
president, yet Barack Obama could?
I thought it had more to do with Obama being smart enough not to
try to guilt-trip his way into the nomination.
-jcr
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245