Is a Cannabis Crackdown Coming?

How a U.S. attorney helped create a medical marijuana system she says is "not tenable"


This month Washington's legislature ended its 2014 session without approving new restrictions on medical marijuana, a step that supporters portrayed as necessary to prevent federal interference as the state begins allowing the sale of cannabis for recreational use. After all, the Justice Department indicated in an August 29 memo that it would allow legalization to proceed in Washington and Colorado only if both states created "strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems." Washington's medical marijuana dispensaries, which are not licensed or regulated by the state, seem inconsistent with that expectation.

Jenny Durkan, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington, said as much the very day the DOJ memo was released. "The Department guidance is premised on the expectation that the state will implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems," she warned. "The continued operation and proliferation of unregulated, for-profit entities outside of the state's regulatory and licensing scheme is not tenable and violates both state and federal law."

Now that it looks like these unregulated entities will continue selling marijuana for another year or so at least, competing with the state-licensed stores that are supposed to start opening this summer, will Durkan feel compelled to crack down? Probably not, judging from her past behavior and a close examination of her public statements. Patience certainly seems like a more appropriate response, especially since Durkan is largely responsible for creating the situation that she now views as "not tenable."

In Washington it has been legal for patients with doctor's recommendations and their "designated providers" to grow and possess marijuana since 1998, when voters passed an initiative to that effect. But there has never been an explicitly approved commercial source of marijuana for patients who were not up to growing their own medicine and could not find someone willing to do it for them. Until 2011 dispensaries operated based on a model in which a given seller became the temporary designated provider for each patient who bought cannabis from him. That year the legislature finally approved a bill aimed at regulating the medical marijuana business. But Gov. Christine Gregoire vetoed almost all of the bill, citing advice from Durkan and Michael Ormsby, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Washington.

"The Washington legislative proposals will create a licensing scheme that permits large-scale marijuana cultivation and distribution," Durkan and Ormsby wrote in a letter to Gregoire. "This would authorize conduct contrary to federal law…Accordingly, the Department could consider civil and criminal legal remedies regarding those who set up marijuana growing facilities and dispensaries…Others who knowingly facilitate the actions of the licensees, including property owners, landlords, and financiers, should also know that their conduct violates federal law. In addition, state employees who conducted activities mandated by the Washington legislative proposals would not be immune from liability under the CSA [Controlled Substances Act]."

Gregoire interpreted that last sentence as a threat to prosecute state employees involved in licensing and regulating medical marijuana suppliers. She therefore vetoed all the provisions of the medical marijuana bill that would have put them in that position. All that was left was a provision letting patients grow cannabis in "collective gardens" rather than buy it from the state-licensed outlets that were supposed to be the main source of medical marijuana. That provision, which allowed up to 10 patients and 45 plants per garden, became the new legal rationale for dispensaries. Today medical marijuana suppliers in Washington typically operate as collective gardens (or collections of collective gardens) with rotating memberships: When a patient enters a dispensary, he becomes a member for the length of the transaction.

There are hundreds of such dispensaries in Washington, with as many as 200 in Seattle alone (depending on whether you count delivery operations or just storefronts). John Schochet, deputy chief of staff in the Seattle City Attorney's Office, says state appeals courts have approved the idea of collective gardens with rotating memberships. "I couldn't give you a clear answer as to whether it's illegal under criminal law," he says, but "no one's been convicted for selling marijuana illegally using a collective garden in King County [where Seattle is located] at least." Seattle has not tried to close down the dispensaries, although last year the city council approved an ordinance that will limit them to 45 plants and 24 ounces per location unless they obtain state licenses by January 1, 2015.

Durkan, whose office is in Seattle, views these dispensaries as illegal under state law as well as federal law. Still, she has generally tolerated them. Ormsby has been notably more aggressive in prosecuting medical marijuana suppliers, but dispensaries openly operate in his district as well. Sean Green, the recipient of Washington's first cultivation license for recreational marijuana, has run a dispensary in Spokane for more than a year. The online directory WeedMaps lists about 30 dispensaries (including delivery operations) in eastern Washington.

Durkan's office would not comment on her enforcement plans, and I have not received a response from Ormsby's office. But in a March 14 interview with KUOW, the NPR station in Seattle, Durkan provided some clues. "Under Washington state law, dispensaries are not legal," she said. "Every dispensary that is operating is an illegal business." At the same time, she suggested that her office will take action against dispensaries only if "they cross the line into implicating one of the public-interest factors that the Department of Justice has cited."

Durkan's description of her office's drug-related work offers further reason to think closing down dispensaries won't be a high priority for her. "The vast majority of the cases we bring are cases that involve or implicate Mexican [cartels]," she said. "There are huge quantities of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and bulk cash being transported internationally and between states. That's where we're going to focus our resources. We do not have the resources, nor is it our job, to focus on smaller drug cases that can be handled locally."

Philip Dawdy, media and policy director at the Washington Cannabis Association, was encouraged by Durkan's remarks. "With the feds, things are always unpredictable," he says, "but based on Jenny Durkan's comments on Friday, I'd say we are not a big priority for them unless people are running afoul of the guidance in [the Cole memo]. The piece of her comments that concerns me the most is her statement that all dispensaries in the state are illegal. There is state law that protects them if they're operating as collective gardens, and I hope the feds will respect both that law and the various local ordinances that have been passed over the last three years allowing for them." That seems only fair, since the feds had a hand in killing legislation that could have created the "strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems" they are now demanding.

This article originally appeared at Forbes.

NEXT: Instapundit Glenn Reynolds on Fast and Slow Disasters for America

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. ...will Durkan feel compelled to crack down? Probably not, judging from her past behavior and a close examination of her public statements.

    Why, Jacob, I don't know that I've ever seen you be so optimistic about federal prosecutor restraint. Still, I wouldn't rush to open any dispensaries in Washington just yet.

    1. I did serious and extensive research into the possibility of going into business in California. My conclusion is that only an idiot would do so given Federal law.

      That being said, as long as State employees don't actually handle or distribute cannabis it's utter hogwash that they could be held liable under the CSA. I don't need a license from the State, or zoning approval, or a sales tax number or any of the other bureaucratic minutiae administered by local or State authorities to start a drug dealing concern that violates Federal law. The immunity granted State and local authorities is pretty darned broad based and for all it's chest beating even a ton of Viagra isn't going to give the Feds the ability to perform.

      OK, sure, they could file charges but then everyone would know that their threats are nothing but hot air when laughed out of the court room. Even the grand jury might refuse to indict, right after indicting the proverbial ham sandwich. The Feds threats really are that laughable.

  2. What's "untenable" is the damned lie that is "Schedule I Cannabis".
    It shall NOT stand.

    1. Exactly who here are you trying to convince with such bold statements?

      1. Certainly not the people with an authority fetish who don't care about the facts.

      2. Cannabis shall be removed from CSA "Schedule I", and placed in "CSA Subchapter I, Part A, ?802. Definitions, paragraph (6)", appended to the list "distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco", where it will STILL be the least-toxic in the category [by several orders of magnitude].

        In other words, EXEMPT from CSA scheduling.

        Anything short of THAT is UNACCEPTABLE.

        Want to make a wager?

  3. There needs to be no federal government.

    1. or a federal government that persecutes violations of the constitution as is required under US code

  4. Narcotics police are an enormous, corrupt international bureaucracy ... and now fund a coterie of researchers who provide them with 'scientific support' ... fanatics who distort the legitimate research of others. ... The anti-marijuana campaign is a cancerous tissue of lies, undermining law enforcement, aggravating the drug problem, depriving the sick of needed help, and suckering well-intentioned conservatives and countless frightened parents."
    -- William F. Buckley,
    Commentary in The National Review, April 29, 1983, p. 495
    We'd all be better off if the police focused on crimes that have actual victims!

    Does anyone honestly believe that wasting $20 Billion and arresting 3/4 Million Americans annually for choosing a substance Scientifically proven to be safer than what the govt allows, is a sound policy?

  5. Oh please, that list of conditions was destined for failure from the moment the writer hit save.

    1) Prevent distribution to minors.

    Would a 50% reduction be acceptable? From my observations the prohibitionists demand perfection. While I'm sure that age limits strictly enforced at point of sale combined with education are proven to and will significantly reduce youth access it's not possible to keep the kiddies virgins until they're 21 short of building a self contained space station to keep them in.

    2) Prevent revenues from going to criminals.

    Again, will a significant reduction count?

    3) Preventing export to other States.

    Says the Federal government that can't keep it from coming in over any of the 4 borders. Hawaii is probably the only State that could accomplish that but I think the mandatory exit body cavity searches would cause a significant reduction in tourism, and the State would be overrun with perverts.

    4) Preventing legal cannabis vendors from also concurrently dealing illegal drugs.

    Right, all they have to do is be the first government in the history of the world to eliminate a crime of greed. Good luck with that.

    5) Prevent violence & the use of firearms in the cultivation & vending of State legal cannabis.

    Hey Mr. Ripper, please don't use a gun when you rob me. Just ask politely because I'm not allowed to defend myself. Can I hire a security guard licensed to carry a gun? No? Can I at least use a replica to bluff that ripper? No? Can I throw rocks?

    1. 6) Prevent drugged driving and exacerbation of other public health consequences "associated" with mary j. wanna.


      7) Prevent growing on public lands.


      8) Prevent merrywanna law violations on Federal property.


      Are people starting to see that this list is just meant to be an excuse for a crackdown? To avoid people getting mad at the Feds for contravening the will of the voters? For crying out loud they even want State authorities to do the Feds job.

      Let's just forget the fact that the regulation bill was blocked because the communities that "opted out" didn't want to opt out of the tax revenue because it wouldn't have mattered if that law had been signed. Those hoops were set way too high to be jumped through by anyone other than Superman.

  6. they keep bitching about the "law" but how about the supreme law of the land, ladies and gentlemen, I give you the United states Constitution-
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.