DEA’s excuses for raiding medical marijuana dispensaries

Back in May, Rep. John Conyers, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to the DEA:

Every month new science supporting the therapeutic value of cannabis is published. As a result, medical and scientific organizations, like the American College of Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association, are urging reform of the laws that place in legal jeopardy physicians or their individual patients who may benefit from the use of cannabis. As the Administrator, you have the discretion to decide whether to continue heightened enforcement activities in California and in other states that have authorized the use of medical cannabis by qualified individuals. Please explain what role, if any, emerging scientific data plays in your decision-making process to conduct enforcement raids on individuals authorized to use or provide medical cannabis under state law.

Along with that question, Conyers wants to know why they think asset forfeiture is helpful, whether they think shuttering dispensaries will lead to more black market sales, whether it’s smart to focus on legal California patients when there’s a shooting drug war going on at our southern border, and how much sales tax California loses from a raided dispensary.  Conyers also demands an accounting of the raids, how much was spent, who was charged with what, and the current status of these cases.

The DEA has answered:

As you are aware, there has been a significant amount of misleading information circulating about DEA’s activities, and we welcome the opportunity to share with you how the Department of Justice (DOJ) and DEA are meeting our obligations under federal law, and how the unlawful trafficking in marijuana taking place in California under the guise of “medicine” is detrimental to the public health and safety.

I guess the improved health of 200,000 California medical marijuana patients doesn’t count as “public”.

Marijuana remains in schedule I consistent with the fact that the drug has never been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for marketing in the United States because scientific studies have never established that marijuana can be used safely and effectively for the treatment of any disease or condition.

No studies have established that marijuana is medically effective?  I’ve done three stories this year on scientific research showing cannabis’ value in treating neuropathic pain.  Numerous medical advocacy groups have recognized marijuana’s medical value.  Thirteen states recognize medical cannabis and even YOU, the federal government, give marijuana for medical purposes to four Americans and have numerous patents on the medical uses of cannabinoids!

The CSA provides a statutory procedure that allows any drug to be rescheduled in light of changes in the factors relevant to scheduling, such as new patterns of abuse and increased understanding about the drug’s pharmacological effects.

That’s true.  So we asked to get some marijuana so we can prove its medical efficacy, but NIDA always says no.  We’ve presented the FDA with evidence of marijuana’s efficacy, but they say until potency can be standardized and contaminants removed, it’s too dangerous.  But of course, we can’t standardize potency or inspect for contaminants, because it is illegal.  In other words, it’s illegal because it’s bad, and we can’t prove it’s not bad because it’s illegal.

DEA investigations of cannabis clubs are typically initiated as a result of one or several of the following factors: a community complaint made to DEA or other law enforcement agency; a request for assistance from local law enforcement and/or city government(s); or a tip that was generated as a result of its association with a collateral drug trafficking/money laundering investigation. DEA does not investigate or target individual “patients” who use cannabis, but instead the Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs) involved in marijuana trafficking.

We don’t bust patients.  We just make sure they can’t get their medicine.  How very compassionate of you.

A sample list of the complaints that DEA has received include:

1. people smoking marijuana outside the distribution facility,
2. an increase in pedestrian and automobile traffic clogging the streets,
3. illegal parking,
4. public safety concerns,
5. loss of customers and business in a once quiet neighborhood,
6. an influx of criminal elements into the neighborhoods,
7. noise, litter, loitering, property damage,
8. the pungent smell of marijuana seeping into neighboring businesses,
9. the smell of marijuana making people ill,
10. secondary smoking risks,
11. public urination,
12. threats and harassment,
13. display of firearms by owners or customers,
14. verbal altercations,
15. selling items that look like candy that small children could confuse and ingest,
16. violations of residential zoning laws,
17. marijuana distributors operating in school zones or close to schools or parks,
18. marijuana distributors operating in or near buildings that house drug treatment facilities,
19. fire hazards from makeshift electrical systems for indoor grows,
20. a decrease in business and revenue for legitimate neighborhood stores,
21. a decrease in tourist revenues and tourist traffic,
22. a decrease in property values,
23. juveniles under the age of 18 are able to purchase marijuana from cannabis clubs under the guise of parental consent,
24. the majority of the customers seen in these clubs are young and do not appear to have any illness, and
25. adults have been buying marijuana from the cannabis clubs and re-selling marijuana to juveniles.

Excuse me, but it looks like about twenty of those complaints are nothing that federal law enforcement should be concerned about.  Smoking outside, foul odors from the business, criminal elements, public urination, threats and harassment, firearms, underaged service – these are local policing complaints that could be attributed to liquor stores, sports bars, strip clubs, pool halls, and movie theaters.

Increased traffic, clogged streets, public safety concerns, illegal parking, noise and litter in once-quiet neighborhoods, zoning violations, decrease in business for other neighborhood stores, decreased tourism – why that sounds like the opening of a new Wal-Mart!

The young, healthy-looking majority of dispensary customers, that’s what really irks them.  It’s that stereotype that marijuana is the “medicine of last resort” and that gaunt frail people in wheelchairs with a week to live are the only people who should use it.  And there is no “guise” of parental consent; parents really do approve of marijuana use for their children under certain circumstances – ask Dr. Lester Grinspoon, who treated his young son’s leukemia with cannabis.

DEA has always focused its attention on those cannabis club operators who are major drug traffickers. Again, the agency does not target individual users who are engaged in “simple possession” of the drug – even though they too are violating federal law and entitled to no immunity.  In fact, DEA has not charged anyone associated with a cannabis club with simple possession, including anyone encountered in the 106 enforcement actions listed in the attachment to your letter.  Rather, the DEA has targeted drug dealers and suppliers.

For example, since 2004, DEA has initiated over 87 investigations involving cannabis clubs. In the 130 enforcement actions taken to date as part of these investigations, 365 people were arrested on both federal and state charges. None of those arrested were charged with simple possession, nor were any of the individuals arrested simply customers of the cannabis clubs. An overall breakdown of arrests during these cases is as follows:

1. 28% of the arrests were of retail dealers,
2. 15% of the arrests were of lab (marijuana grow) operators,
3. 9% of the arrests were of domestic suppliers,
4. 11% of the arrests were of facilitators,
5. 13% of the arrests were of organization lieutenants,
6. 8% of the arrests were of organizational heads,
7. 1% of the arrests were of transporters,
8. 1% of the arrests were of couriers,
9. 1% of the arrests were for money laundering , and
10. 11% of the arrests were for other related charges (e.g., conspiracy to cultivate marijuana, weapons offenses).

Well, of course you don’t go after and charge people for mere simple possession; it’s not worth your time and effort.  Conyers isn’t claiming that and neither are we.  It’s very disingenuous to say you’re sparing the “patients” for their “simple possession” when you’re doing everything in your power to make sure they can’t possess!

As for these arrests, they sound so much scarier when you call them “retail dealers” and “organizational heads”, as if they were working for Tony Soprano.  In fact, what you’ve got in this list, from top to bottom, are “budtenders” (retail clerks), gardeners, more gardeners, investors, store managers, store owners, delivery drivers, more delivery drivers, more investors, and gun owners.

In answering Conyers’ questions (after fourteen pages of these excuses), DEA says that we can trust them to use Civil Asset Forfeiture fairly, because there is a lot of oversight.  No answer to Conyers’ worries that forfeiture will drive down nearby property values and provide a financial boost to the black market.

Regarding allocation of resources to California medical marijuana while there is a shooting drug war in Mexico, DEA says don’t worry, they’ve examined their priorities and they can do both at once.  That’s why there are still dispensaries opening up in California and there are 4,600 drug war deaths in Mexico this year.

Regarding the loss of sales tax to California on medical marijuana sales, the DEA says:

…we have explained that income derived from the sale of marijuana, whether in California or not, represents proceeds of illegal drug trafficking, and as such is forfeitable under federal law. The State of California is neither an innocent owner nor a lien holder in regards to collecting illegal drug proceeds. All right, title, and interest in property subject to forfeiture under the CSA – including all money and other proceeds of illegal drug sales – shall vest in the United States upon commission of the illegal act giving rise to the forfeiture.

In other words, don’t complain, California, or we can just seize all that sales tax money from you.

In closing, DEA brings up Prop 215 co-author Scott Imler’s quote about “store front pot dealers”, attempting to imply that even the die-hard supporters of the original measure feel it’s being abused.  But Prop 215 was co-written by seven people, and six of them completely disagree with Imler (I’ll assume Dr. Tod Mikuriya disagrees, since he has passed on, but Dr. Tod was always a very vocal supporter of the “any other illness for which marijuana provides relief” language of Prop 215, to the point of disparaging programs in the other states for having such strict qualifying conditions.)