Marijuana

Federal Bill Offers One-Two Punch Against Marijuana Meddling, Asset Forfeiture

Would forbid use of seized funds to perpetuate drug war.

|

All that money and they couldn't get a decent photographer.
DEA

Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) have joined up for an interesting proposal to scale back both the drug war and asset forfeiture on the federal level. Rather than trying to control how law enforcement agencies collect or distribute seized assets from busts, they want to reduce some incentives by controlling how the seized assets may be used.

The two of them have partnered together to introduce legislation that would prohibit the use of money from federal asset forfeiture program to participate in the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) marijuana eradication program. H.R. 3518 would order "beginning in fiscal year 2015, and for each fiscal year thereafter, no amounts in the Fund may be used for the Domestic Cannabis Suppression/Eradication Program of the Drug Enforcement Administration, or any substantially similar program." It would also prohibit seized property from being transferred to law enforcement agencies if that property would be used for purposes of participating in the marijuana eradication program.

Here's what Lieu and Amash had to say about their efforts:

"As multiple states legalize marijuana across our nation, it is a huge waste of federal resources for the DEA to eradicate marijuana," said Congressman Lieu.  "The federal government should focus its precious resources on other issues and let the states innovate in the cannabis field.  I am proud to introduce this bipartisan bill along with Congressman Amash."

"Civil asset forfeiture allows innocent people to have their property taken without sufficient due process, and this program encourages civil asset forfeiture by allowing the DEA to use the proceeds of seized property to fund marijuana prohibition enforcement," said Congressman Amash.  "This is especially troubling given that the federal government should not be expending resources on marijuana prohibition—enforcement is a state-level issue, and an increasing number of states are deciding to back off from prohibition. I'm pleased to introduce this bipartisan bill with Congressman Lieu to stop the use of civil forfeiture proceeds for this element of the federal government's marijuana enforcement efforts."

For its part, the DEA boasts that in 2014 it eradicated more than 4 million marijuana plants in the United States through the help of this program and participating law enforcement agencies. This resulted in more than 6,300 arrests and the seizure of more than $27 million in assets.

That puts a clever little twist on what the legislation is trying to accomplish. By preventing law enforcement agencies from using seized money from this program, that means even if law enforcement agencies want to continue with the marijuana eradication, they can't use the assets they seize from it to fund future efforts.

The bill was introduced just last week and is currently sitting in the House Judiciary Committee. Does it have a chance to get anywhere? Well, in April Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) introduced a bill that would stop the feds from enforcing the federal marijuana ban in states that have legalized possession. In May it was referred to a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, and nothing has come of it since then.

NEXT: More Than 700 Pilgrims Die in Stampede at 'Stoning the Devil' Portion of Muslim Hajj

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OT, but I’m seeing a lot of these pro-cop news stories in the news. Guess what pigs? It’s not a PR problem you have, it’s a murdering citizens problem. No amount of touch-feely hagiography is going to clear that up.

    Fuck you, quit murdering!

    Cop Pays for Homeless Family to Stay In Hotel:
    http://news.yahoo.com/cop-pays…..51418.html

    Black Driver Cop Selfie Goes Viral:
    http://news.yahoo.com/black-dr…..24224.html

  2. This article really should have been posted after the next one. A good testicular massage after the nut punch would’ve been nice.

  3. It’s a nice thought, but it’s not going to solve the problem because money is fungible. So even if the feds can’t use seized assets for anti-pot programs, they can use them to fund anti-jenkem programs and the congressionally appropriated money they would have spent on jenkem now goes to anti-pot efforts.

    1. “Now remember, you can’t buy liquor or cigarettes with your EBT card.”

    2. I had the same thought when I read this. It’s a nice idea all painted up to look like “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” are moving ahead. Unfortunately, it’s just a show to fool the inattentive masses. I like Justin Amash, but asset forfeiture is theft – clear and simple. Without due process, it’s just government sponsored theft, whether they use the funds for weed enforcement or buying fireworks for the Forth of July parade, it’s money they stole from someone and spent.

      1. ^This.

    3. Yep, it is a statement and nothing else. I mean, I appreciate the statement, but it is a bit like a day-late birthday text from a salesman. Doesn’t mean much other than “I want to be in the news and I hope people don’t think too hard about this.”

  4. The entire purpose of the asset forfeiture law was to fund the war on drugs and it’s just grown to allow confiscation of property and money for other suspected crimes. It was unconstitutional for that and it’s unconstitutional for any other reason. No American should be at risk of having their assets confiscated without conviction or at least being charged with a crime, and no American should have to prove they earned anything legally in order to have their property returned to them. The onus is on government to PROVE that goods were illegally gained, not the other way around.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.