(Los Angeles Times) The sentencing of a man who has become a key figure in the national debate over medical marijuana was postponed Thursday, with a federal judge saying he was inclined to impose a more lenient sentence than the five years required by federal sentencing guidelines, but questioning whether he had the authority to do so.
“If I could find a way out, I would,” U.S. District Judge George H. Wu said. He gave lawyers in the case until June 2 to file briefs regarding the impending sentence of Charles Lynch.
Lynch, 47, ran a medical marijuana dispensary in Morro Bay on the Central Coast in 2006 and 2007. Despite having the blessing of the city’s mayor and other public officials, he was charged with violating federal drug laws for distributing marijuana and was convicted by a federal court jury in Los Angeles last year.
Cultivating, using and selling doctor-recommended medical marijuana is allowed under some circumstances in California and a dozen other states, but federal law bans the drug altogether.
Though Lynch was not charged with violating state law, prosecutors contend that he broke the law because he was not truly a “primary caregiver” entitled to dispense marijuana to patients and that he profited from the operation of his business.
Much of the discussion Thursday dealt with whether Wu was required to sentence Lynch to a mandatory minimum of five years or whether the defendant was entitled to a lesser sentence under a so-called safety valve.
The next hearing in the case, which the judge said would be the last, is scheduled for June 11.
So the federal prosecutors contend Lynch was violating state law regarding the patient/caregiver relationship, yet since federal law doesn’t recognize state medical marijuana laws, Lynch isn’t allowed to mention state law in his defense. Got it? When it comes to federally prosecuting Lynch, his violation of state law is admissable, but when it comes to federally defending Lynch, his adherence to state law is inadmissable.
President Obama, when you promised “What I’m not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue”, isn’t the Charles Lynch case exactly what you had in mind? Attorney General Holder, when you promised “Our focus will be on people, organizations that are growing, cultivating substantial amounts of marijuana and doing so in a way that’s inconsistent with federal and state law”, how do you justify prosecuting Charles Lynch?
Shortly after AG Holder made the announcement on Feb. 26, I wrote this:
Here’s my prediction: we will see more medical marijuana dispensary raids and the Obama Administration will claim they have no issue with legitimate medical marijuana providers, but these providers were operating outside California law and these providers were diverting medical marijuana to the black market and these providers were selling to minors and whole raft of excuses where they emphasize that these providers are a reasonable exception to “using Justice Department resources” because they were outside of Prop 215 / SB 420 / Jerry Brown’s Guidelines and therefore, the DEA is not “circumvent[ing] state laws on this issue”.
If the federal government believes that dispensaries are operating outside California law, then they need to refer those cases to California’s attorney general. If California decides these people are violating California law, then California should prosecute them. The promise not to conduct raids unless dispensaries break California law is hollow when the feds get to decide someone broke California law with no trial or evidence before conducting the raid.
Kill All Narcs.