All of this brings to question whether those DEA letters sent to landlords warning of potential forfeiture actions and other penalties are still valid. Asked about the issue several weeks ago, a spokesperson for Attorney General Eric H. Holder did not give a clear answer about the Justice Department’s intentions.
When asked whether landlords who rent to medical marijuana cooperatives are still at risk of asset forfeiture, a U.S. Department of Justice official said it’s not a priority to target those who follow state laws. Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said in an email that “as part of the federal government’s efforts to best employ its resources, the Department focuses its investigative and enforcement activities involving marijuana on large-scale drug traffickers whose conduct is often inconsistent with both federal and state law.”
All of this, of course, comes as welcome news to medical marijuana advocates, who say that more than 300 letters were sent by the DEA to landlords in 2007 and 2008. “Since Obama has taken office, we have not seen any letters disseminated,” Americans for Safe Access spokesperson Kris Hermes said.
In case you don’t know about Civil Asset Forfeiture, it is one of the most insidious legacies of the War on (Certain American Citizens Using Non-Pharmaceutical, Non-Alcoholic, Tobacco-Free) Drugs. The basic idea was that if a drug kingpin bought boats, houses, and cars with his ill-gotten drug money, the government can seize those assets, sell them at auction, and use the proceeds to fight more bad guys. In reality it has meant low-level marijuana users losing their property over a seed or a joint.
In this instance, the feds have been trying to scare landlords in California by sending them letters threatening to seize any properties rented to medical marijuana providers, since in their view, those providers are just drug kingpins. This also touches on what was Joe Biden’s RAVE Act, the law that allows feds to seize properties used for drug distribution, like “E” at a rave or joints at a concert, whether the owner allows it or even knows about it or not. Worse, in a forfeiture action, you don’t even have to be charged with a crime – the property is charged with the crime, and it is guilty until proven innocent (e.g., you have to prove you didn’t buy that car with drug money).
Shouldn’t there be some kind of criteria to be considered a “drug kingpin”? ..something like a minimum number of murders per year or a quota on the number of minors you sell drugs to??
Openly operating, (state) law-abiding stores bending over backwards to pay taxes would hardly make the grade!