Cannabis Thieves
DRCNet reports on a standoff between a Colorado judge and the members of an anti-drug task force whom he cited for contempt of court after they refused to return cannabis they seized from a state-recognized medical marijuana user. The Justice Department, seeking to have the case transferred to federal court, argues that the eight local police officers on the Grand Routt and Moffatt Narcotics Enforcement Team (GRAMNET) were deputized as DEA agents, so they are beyond Routt County Judge James Garrecht's reach. Furthermore, the feds say, the officers had no choice but to flout Colorado law:
It is not the intent of officers or agents of the US to violate state law in the performance of their duties or to ignore orders of state court judges. In this instant, regrettably, such violation was mandated by federal law, a circumstance that is unfortunate and rare. Once GRAMNET members had in their custody contraband as defined by federal statute, they were required to follow federal law in the performance of their duties.
If cases like this multiply, perhaps the federal government will decide to back off and allow a little drug policy experimentation at the state level. Intergovernmental acrimony and negative publicity might accomplish what respect for the Constitution has not.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I think you make an interesting point about drug policy experimentation at the state level. This could be the way to break prohibitionists' stranglehold on drug policy in this country.
No more than a luminary than Justice Brandeis wrote in a 1932 dissent that "One of the happy incidents of the federal system is that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."
It is too bad some conservatives are willing to run roughshod over the principle of federalism in their misguided quest to fight the war on drugs. Let?s hope some of the drug legalization referendums succeed next time around.
Please, sweet jebus let this be the first hole in the dike. But Jacob, I don't think we're going to see it in this lifetime. I honestly believe the scales have tipped, and now too many "mercenaries" are making too good a living off of fighting on the wrong side of this war against US citizens.
"If cases like this multiply, perhaps the federal government will decide to back off and allow a little drug policy experimentation at the state level."
Dream on Jake. If cases like this multiply DEA commandos will start raiding courthouses and taking the renegade judges into custody. They'll probably be held in Cuba without being charged.
That brings up something I was wondering about: what _does_ happen in cases where a judge orders a government agency to do (or not do) something, and the agency says in effect "nanny nanny poo poo, we can't hear you"? Obviously, the cops (of all sorts) benefit a great deal by a close relationship with the courts, but how exactly can they be coerced into compliance with a court order in the event that they just don't listen? I'm having visions of the feds getting into a standoff with state marshals attempting to enforce a court order...
I love Fridays...three H&R's AND a column from Sullum.
Get the real estate agents behind it... they stand to cash in on the massive influx of moneyed stoners buying houses in whatever state first says F.U. to the feds...
In ordering federal agents to enforce federal laws against marijuana in states that have passed medical marijuana laws, President Bush is continuing the policy of President Clinton.
But it is a choice by the President to do so, and Sen. John Kerry has stated that he opposes federal raids on cannabis buyers clubs and on patients who use medical marijuana. So defeating President Bush may bring us closer to a sane policy on medical marijuana.
JD Weiner
The day the folks with the guns decide not to listen to the folks in the robes, the folks in the robes essentially become powerless. However much some of us may disagree with and despise many robed folks and their decisions, I hope that day never comes in this country.
fyodor,
AMEN
Gene,
Maybe, but only if Kerry isn't a low-life, lying, cheating, stealing, son of a bitch.
[sigh]
...Sen. John Kerry has stated that he opposes federal raids on cannabis buyers clubs and on patients who use medical marijuana.
Yeah, well Kerry is no Dennis Kucinich!
So Kerry has a "nuanced" position on medical marijuana? I don't guess this reflects a general bias on questions of federalism.
This has gotta be really big for "Libertarians for Collectivists". They will LET you smoke dope, IF you get cancer...and that HAS to be worth flushing a free economy down the toilet, and the Free World after it.
fyodor,
It's happened once before, so it wouldn't surprise me if it happened again. Though I do hope it doesn't happen again.
In case you're wondering what I mean, open the encyclopedia to Jackson, Andrew.
The feds are still busting MMJ suppliers, but each episode is thoroughly covered now by media and within hours, the world sees up front how insane the policy is.
That wasn't the case as recently as six years ago when the first such busts started taking place.
Between Internet transfer of information and the strong growth of activist groups in California and Oregon (namely) this is becoming a no-win situation for the feds.
Oh, Oregon will have an initiative on the ballot this fall that will legalize sales of MMJ. Current law in Oregon permits possession and also distribution of MMJ, but not for exchange of $$.
If you know registered voters in Oregon, I invite you to let them know they should sign the petition and also vote Yes in November.
see: http://www.voterpower.org
Mo writes, beating me to it: "In case you're wondering what I mean, open the encyclopedia to Jackson, Andrew."
Yes, "how many troops has the court." And we managed to skate past that one. Ditto to what fyodor and others have said. Order is a value unto itself, however unsexy and (for me) uncharacteristic an observation that may be.
Mona,
I'm glad we skated past that. It's a testament to the respect of rights in this country (it ain't perfect, but still the best. It's also an example of the occasional hiccups we hit every couple of generations. Fortunately, we have plenty of REASONable to help right the ship when we hit them.
Gene wrote:
Sen. John Kerry has stated that he opposes federal raids on cannabis buyers clubs and on patients who use medical marijuana. So defeating President Bush may bring us closer to a sane policy on medical marijuana.
I remember the 2000 campaign when Bush clearly said that this was a matter best left up to the states. Since he turned out to be a lying a-hole, what makes you think that Kerry wouldn't do the exact same thing? Politicians do this becasue there is no downside to reneging on such promises.
Don't get me wrong, there are few things I would like to see more than seeing Dubya sent back to Texas where he can mismanage a private company or two rather than the whole country... but I remain skeptical as to whether his successor would be any better in this regard.
I don't see any more hope that publicizing medical marijuana raids will gain sympathy from Americans than that showing pictures of dismembered Jewish kids will gain sympathy from Palestinians. They'll just say, "Alright, GOT the bastards!" Of course, people do have free will (sorry, Julian!), so they may change their views, but it's a slow process.
Today it's tacitly assumed that federal authority overrides state authority in all cases, for the very good reason that the feds have a lot more guns. But the Constitution doesn't support that.
It's ironic that liberals and conservatives are so inconsistent on states rights issues. Remember when that judge in Alabama wanted the 10 Commandments on the courthouse steps, and the Feds said no?
As far as I'm concerned, people in Alabama should have all the religious statues they want in government buildings, and people in California should have medical marijuana, and people can choose where they want to live.
I know where I live!
Fire 'em. Let the DEA hire them if they want to.
Meanwhile, they'll get an idea of who actually PAYS them.
The Denver CBS affiliate has an excellent - and rare - positive portrayal of Nord's fight against the feds. Go here: http://kcnc.dayport.com/launcher/1433/