The FBI has a problem.
The Bureau needs more specialists to combat cybercrime–especially now that the Obama Justice Department has indicted five Chinese military officials for hacking into American companies to steal trade secrets.
On the other hand: Many of the tech-savvy experts the FBI wants to hire are as much into marijuana as they are into computers.
On May 19, FBI Director James Comey tried to inject a note of humor into this situation when addressing a New York conference.
FBI Director James Comey
Comey said the FBI was grappling with balancing its desire to recruit a strong workforce against changing attitudes on marijuana use by states and young adults.
“Some of those kids want to smoke weed on the way to the interview,” said Comey.
The comment landed Comey in hot water at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on May 21.
“Do you understand that that could be interpreted as one more example of leadership in America dismissing the seriousness of marijuana use and that could undermine our ability to convince young people not to go down a dangerous path?” asked Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama).
“Very much, Senator,” Comey replied. “I am determined not to lose my sense of humor, but, unfortunately, there I was trying to be both serious and funny.
“I am absolutely dead-set against using marijuana. I don’t want young people to use marijuana. It’s against the law. We have a three-year ban on marijuana. I did not say that I am going to change that ban.”
By this, Comey meant that the FBI will not hire anyone who has used marijuana during the previous three years.
Comey was referring to marijuana’s still being illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Despite this, many states now allow its use for “medical” purposes.
In Colorado and Washington state, it can be legally used for any purpose.
Which, in turn, brings up a salient point:
The dangers of secondhand smoke are now almost universally accepted, even by smokers. But from a strictly health-related viewpoint, there is as much reason to restrict exposure to marijuana smoke.
Consider the following from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OEHHA) of the State’s Environmental Protection Agency:
“MARIJUANA SMOKE LISTED EFFECTIVE JUNE 19, 2009 AS KNOWN TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CAUSE CANCER [06/19/09]
“The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of the California Environmental Protection Agency is adding marijuana smoke to the Proposition 65 list, effective June 19, 2009.
“Marijuana smoke was considered by the Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) of the OEHHA Science Advisory Board at a public meeting held on May 29, 2009.
The CIC determined that marijuana smoke was clearly shown, through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles, to cause cancer.
“In summary, marijuana smoke is being listed under Proposition 65 as known to the State to cause cancer:”
Yet marijuana smoke is treated as something harmless, even as a subject for humor.
On “The Tonight Show,” Jay Leno often joked about the growing number of “patients” who need “medical marijuana” as a remedy for glaucoma.
In San Francisco–long known as a bastion of tolerance for drug-abuse offenses of all types–police are cutting back on the enforcement of drug crimes.
Marijuana
This is especially true in the case of marijuana.
The SFPD claims this reflects a shift to focusing on violent crime,
The decline is also partly due to a 10% staff cut during the past two years, as well as a $600,000 reduction in state and federal grants for drug enforcement.
The president of a property management agency recently told me that if a tenant complains of marijuana smoke pollution from another unit, the police will not enter the unit from which the stench is coming.
Yet marijuana remains illegal under the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), classified as a Schedule 1 substance.
A Schedule 1 substance is defined as having the following characteristics:
- It has a high potential for abuse.
- It has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
- There is a lack of accepted safety for its use under medical supervision.
And despite the unwillingness of the SFPD to enforce anti-drug laws, a 2011 Supreme Court decision allows police to force their way into a home without a warrant.
By an 8-1 vote, the Court upheld the warrantless search of an apartment after police smelled marijuana and feared that those inside were destroying incriminating evidence.
In addition, Federal asset forfeiture laws allow the Justice Department to seize properties used to facilitate violations of Federal anti-drug laws.
On November 6, 2012, Americans overwhelmingly re-elected Barack Obama as President of the United States.
And on the same date, Americans in Colorado and Washington state overwhelmingly voted to decriminalize and regulate the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana by adults over 21.
Both measures called for setting up state licensing schemes for pot growers, processors and retail stores.
On December 6, 2012, hundreds of potheads gathered at Seattle Center for a New Year’s Eve-style countdown to 12 a.m., when the legalization measure took effect.
When the clock struck, they cheered and lit up in unison–as though inhaling cancerous fumes and a skunk-like stench was something to celebrate.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
ABC NEWS, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, BARACK OBAMA, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, CBS NEWS, CNN, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, FACEBOOK, JAY LENO, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, MARIJUANA, NBC NEWS, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT, SECONDHAND SMOKE, SMOKING, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE TONIGHT SHOW, THE WASHINGTON POST, TOBACCO, TWITTER
FBI DOESN’T SPELL P-O-T: PART TWO (END)
In Bureaucracy, Law, Law Enforcement, Social commentary on May 23, 2014 at 12:11 amOn November 6, 2012, Americans overwhelmingly re-elected Barack Obama as President of the United States.
And on the same date, Americans in Colorado and Washington state overwhelmingly voted to decriminalize and regulate the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana by adults over 21.
Both measures called for setting up state licensing schemes for pot growers, processors and retail stores.
But at the Federal level, marijuana remains a prohibited, Schedule 1 drug.
And in a marijuana-related decision–King v. Kentucky–the Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that police can force their way into a home without a warrant.
By an 8-1 vote, the Court upheld the warrantless search of an apartment after police smelled marijuana and feared that those inside were destroying incriminating evidence.
Police drug raid
Prior to the November 6 marijuana-legalization votes, the Obama Justice Department had issued a policy for handling states that had legalized “medical marijuana.”
This said that Federal officials should generally not use their limited resources to go after small-time users, but should investigate and prosecute large-scale trafficking organizations.
The result was increased Federal raids on marijuana dispensaries–much to the outrage of potheads and liberals.
Since the legalization of “recreational marijuana” in Colorado and Washington state, senior White House and Justice Department officials have considered taking legal action against those states to undermine their voter-approved initiatives.
The Federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in particular sees the legalization of marijuana as a direct challenge to its authority to enforce Federal anti-drug laws.
The agency’s official position in marijuana is as follows:
Marijuana is properly categorized under Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. S 801, et seq.
The clear weight of the currently available evidence supports this classification, including evidence that smoked marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical value in treatment in the United States, and evidence that there is a general lack of accepted safety for its use even under medical supervision.
The campaign to legitimize what is called “medical” marijuana is based on two propositions: first, that science views marijuana as medicine; and, second, that the DEA targets sick and dying people using the drug. Neither proposition is true.
Specifically, smoked marijuana has not withstood the rigors of science–it is not medicine, and it is not safe. Moreover, the DEA targets criminals engaged in the cultivation and traficking of marijuana, not the sick and the dying. This is true even in the 15 states that have approved the use of “medical” marijuana.
Click here: http://www.justice.gov/dea/docs/marijuana_position_2011.pdf
Among the DEA’s weapons: Federal asset forfeiture laws allow the Justice Department to seize properties used to facilitate violations of Federal anti-drug laws.
To increase the penalties for violating such laws, Congress amended the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984.
Section 881(a)(7) authorizes the forfeiture of real property “which is used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission” of a felony violation of the Federal Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.
Congress intended that section to attack the economic power underwriting illegal drug operations. As a result, the Justice Department can seize houses and/or land from a landowner owing to a tenant’s illegal drug activity.
This holds true even if the landlord didn’t participate in or claimed to be unaware of the drug-law violations.
Before civil forfeiture can proceed, two requirements must be met:
Once the government has proved the property was used to “facilitate” the violation of Federal anti-drug laws, seizure of the property can occur.
This usually means invoking the “innocent owner” defense: “I didn’t know or consent to what was going on.”
It’s up to the landowner to prove his innocence. And proving a lack of knowledge and/or consent is extremely hard.
If an “affirmative” defense can’t be proved, forfeiture of the property is virtually inevitable.
The U.S. Attorney General then has the legal right to sell the forfeited property. The profits from this sale can then be forwarded to various agencies of the United States Government.
Prosecutors and case agents think of this as a tax on criminality.
There is an additional incentive for local and State law enforcement agencies to seize properties involved in drug-law violations: They are allowed to keep some of the proceeds once the property has been sold.
Thus, financially-strapped police departments have found pursuing drug-law crimes a lucrative way to fill their own coffers.
Still, the Federal Government finds itself not only at war with marijuana-legalizing states but with itself.
President Barack Obama has claimed that the affects of marijuana are no different than those of alcohol. But Michele Leonhart, director of the DEA, opposes legalizing marijuana as “reckless and irresponsible.”
This has reportedly led her boss–Attorney General Eric Holder–to order Leonhart to “get in line” with the administration’s efforts to legalize marijuana and lessen the penalties for people who commit federal drug crimes.
Until there is a concensus by lawmakers and citizens on what America’s policy on marijuana should be, the results will be continued tension and confusion.
Share this: