Reason.tv: Medical Marijuana's Whipping Boy, Charlie Lynch, to be Sentenced June 11; Faces five years for legally operating a dispensary in California

Nick Gillespie | June 8, 2009

Charlie Lynch is the medical marijuana dispensary owner whose business, fully legal under California state law, was raided by federal agents in 2007.

At his federal trial last year, Lynch was not allowed to mention the legal status of medical marijuana under California state law while conducting his defense. The predictable-and outrageous-verdict? Lynch was found guilty of distributing pot and faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison.

After several delays, Lynch's sentencing is scheduled for 10A.M. Pacific Time on Thursday, June 11.

Will justice be served? Or will an innocent man pay for the crimes of a government that is out of control? President Barack Obama has said he will stop federal raids against dispensaries in states that have made medical marijuana legal. Will that pledge make a difference in Lynch's sentencing?

This video was edited by Alexander Manning; additional footage provided by Rick Ray.

Approximately 3.20 minutes. For embed code, previous videos on the Lynch case, and audio, iPod, and HD versions, go here now.

The song "Whipping Boy" was written and performed by Chris Darrow. Courtesy of Everloving Music.

Comments

jpocali|6.8.09 @ 12:09PM|#

Charlie, my wife and I are praying for you every day. May justice prevail!

|6.8.09 @ 12:22PM|#

So is there actually anyone who thinks that Charlie Lynch is a criminal who needs to go to jail? I have a hard time thinking such people exist.

Xeones|6.8.09 @ 12:33PM|#

So is there actually anyone who thinks that Charlie Lynch is a criminal who needs to go to jail?

Well, there's most of the federal government...

Douglas Gray|6.8.09 @ 12:45PM|#

With a $23 Billion dollar deficit in CA, can anyone come up with a price tag for trying, prosecuting and incarcerating Charlie Lynch?
Even if its in a federal court, it's still someone's tax dollars. Insane.

John|6.8.09 @ 12:48PM|#

So is there actually anyone who thinks that Charlie Lynch is a criminal who needs to go to jail? I have a hard time thinking such people exist.

I think the law is wrong, it shouldn't be illegal. However, the law is on the books and the law's the law so he needs to go to jail.

Civil Disobedience |6.8.09 @ 12:55PM|#

Under that same rational, John, the law was the law in Germany, so Jews needed to report to concentration camps.

It's reasoning like this that makes such atrocities possible.

Only natural law is the law. Government law is secondary.

robc|6.8.09 @ 12:56PM|#

John,

Really? No belief in jury nullification? Or hoping, in this case, for judge nullification :). I guess you would oppose Obama pardoning him too?

Although, since that is in the consititution, I guess you wouldnt oppose it. Never said anything bad about any Clinton pardons, I hope.

|6.8.09 @ 12:56PM|#

John, a lawyer should know better than to say something as naive as "the law's the law", especially when we're dealing with contradictory federal and state statutes and mandatory minimums which are themselves of dubious constitutionality. Before we even get to the question of whether CSA itself is constitutional.

robc|6.8.09 @ 12:59PM|#

Tulpa,

The CSA is clearly unconstitutional. As the congress made clear in 1919, the only way to outlaw drugs is via a constitutional amendment. They even established precedent.

|6.8.09 @ 1:00PM|#

@Xeones

Well, the federal government is more of an evil soul-sucking horror instead of a person. I mean, the judge sentencing Charlie probably doesn't think he should go to jail, but he's gonna do it anyway. And then he'll say he's "just doing his job".

@John

"I think the law is wrong, it shouldn't be illegal. However, the law is on the books and the law's the law so he needs to go to jail."

Horseshit. Almost all of our politicians have broken these very same laws, yet I don't see them reporting to jail. And if the jury had been fully informed of their rights as jurors (they don't have to enforce shitty laws), he wouldn't be in jail. Hell, if the jury had been fully informed of the details of the case he wouldn't have gone to jail.

AB390|6.8.09 @ 1:14PM|#

Let's channel our anger at Charlie Lynch's conviction to legalize marijuana in California for adults.

Tell your state representatives to support California Assembly Bill 390. Visit yes390.org

phalkor|6.8.09 @ 1:27PM|#

For this I give a hearty FUCK YOU to William Randolph Hearst and all others responsible for the clusterfuck known as the War on Drugs.

This case epitomizes the shizoid reality of prohibition. Prohibition is just such a powerful tool to control the population. It will be a long and tough road to freedom.

Charlie Lynch is an unfortunate martyr. What a sad state of affairs.

|6.8.09 @ 1:35PM|#

A day after the the anniversary of the death of Peter McWilliams. I'm going to need an anti-depressant.

|6.8.09 @ 1:41PM|#

Shouldn't that headline be:

The Obama Justice Department's Medical Marijuana Whipping Boy?

Justice could have dropped the charges at any time, after all.

|6.8.09 @ 1:58PM|#

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ideal situation for this case would be for a 5-year sentence followed by a presidential pardon. Is it possible that that might happen?

jpocali|6.8.09 @ 2:39PM|#

@ John-

Well, if we want to go the whole the law is the law route....

Dr. Lynch talked to those at the federal level and they told him that it would be up to the state and county he was operating in as to the legality of his enterprise.

The LAW said it was fine, but now they don't.

Xeones|6.8.09 @ 2:41PM|#

Well, the federal government is more of an evil soul-sucking horror instead of a person.

Ah, but the most horrible thing about it is that it is made up of creatures who may have once, themselves, been human.

|6.8.09 @ 3:25PM|#

I don't have I problem with ponytails and beards, but I don't have to be convinced that prohibition is bad policy and bad law. The plaintiff might do better to have lawyers that look like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell but find prohibition to be immoral and not within the bounds of the constitutionally limited federal government. I know looks shouldn't matter, but they do. I think arguments would be better received by social conservatives if the lawyers didn't look like they were serving their personal desire to toke.

Homo Erectus|6.8.09 @ 3:56PM|#

Are those two guys cum swapping? It sure looks like it to me.

The Wine Commonsewer (TWC)|6.8.09 @ 5:12PM|#

At his federal trial last year, Lynch was not allowed to mention the legal status of medical marijuana under California state law while conducting his defense.

No surprise there, the courts have no interest in getting at the truth. It is all about the procedures, tricks, & technicalities.

|6.8.09 @ 6:36PM|#

It is really hard for me to understand how we, as an intelligent species, can actually allow this to happen. I see no logic nor rational in this case (along with many others).

I cannot fathom that there is a man living in the USA doing some that was LEGAL in his own state being thrown in jail by the federal government. Absolutely mind boggling.

joe|6.8.09 @ 8:18PM|#

if that juror felt that way why did she not stand for right and dead lock the jury outrageous everyone wants justice but they won't stand up for it themselves

The Wine Commonsewer (TWC)|6.8.09 @ 8:51PM|#

Joe, I was wondering the same thing. If she was that concerned, why vote to convict? Might be morning after regret, though.

|6.8.09 @ 10:56PM|#

However, the law is on the books and the law's the law so he needs to go to jail.

Charlie Lynch was operating his business legally. The Feds are acting illegally, because there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to overrule the will of the voters in California. Alcohol prohibition took a constitutional amendment, and that amendment has been repealed.

Lynch is a political prisoner.

-jcr

|6.8.09 @ 10:59PM|#

Lynch was not allowed to mention the legal status of medical marijuana under California state law while conducting his defense.

He should have done it anyway. The judge obviously wanted to prevent Lynch from defending himself, but there's no reason why Lynch should play along.

The judge could keep declaring mistrials, and Lynch could keep exposing the government's hypocrisy until the judge got sick of being in the news.

-jcr

|6.8.09 @ 11:01PM|#

I give a hearty FUCK YOU to William Randolph Hearst and all others responsible for the clusterfuck known as the War on Drugs.

Don't forget Barack Obama, who could pardon Lynch at any time.

-jcr

jpocali|6.8.09 @ 11:37PM|#

@ John C.

The judge has postponed the verdict a couple of times, and unless I read it wrong, is actually trying to find a way around the minimum sentencing guidelines of 5 years.

Off topic, I just wanted to let everyone know that I , personally, have saved or created over 1,000 jobs today! Granted, I created no jobs and it is hard to identify the jobs I saved, but I am pretty sure that I saved at least 1,000 of them today. Tomorrow I shoot for 2,000!

ktc2|6.10.09 @ 8:54AM|#

"The law is the law" is absolutely moronic.

By that "logic" all the decent people who hid innocent jews in Nazi Germany deserve the death penalty the law required.

I can't believe that there are still people stupid enough to make such statements, let alone believe them.

Federale|6.10.09 @ 4:27PM|#

To whom do libertarians pray? Mamon? The god of marijuana?