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.
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:
- An exchange of a controlled substance; and
- A substantial connection between the property and the illegal activity.
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.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
ABC NEWS, ADDITIVES, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, AP, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC), CHEMICALS, CNN, COALATION FOR REASONABLE VAPING REGULATION, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DANA MEANEY-DELMAN, DENNIS HERRERA, E-CIGARETTES, FACEBOOK, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, FLAVORANTS, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, GAYS, JUUL LABS, LEAD, LESBIANS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NICKEL, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, PROPOSITION C, PULMONARY DISEASE, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, SEATTLE TIMES, SHAMMAN WALTON, SLATE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TIN, TOBACCO, TRUTHDIG, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
UP IN SMOKE: YOUR HEALTH
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on September 12, 2019 at 12:07 amEarlier this year, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Supervisor Shamann Walton co-authored a measure to ban the sale of e-cigarettes in the city until their safety had been reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration.
No e-cigarettes on the market have gone through such a review.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed the measure in June—making San Francisco the first city in the country to prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes.
It’s slated to go into effect in January, 2020.
Now vaping company Juul Labs, Inc., is sponsoring Proposition C to overturn the ban.
This would allow e-cigarettes to be sold in San Francisco with new regulations, which would
The measure was written by The Coalition for Reasonable Vaping Regulation—which is financed by Juul.
So far, Juul has spent $4.3 million to promote the measure—more than has been spent on any other ballot measure this year.
Flyers promoting “Yes on C” have been plastered on apartment doors and taped to telephone poles. The airwaves are filled with similar ads promoting vaping as a “healthier alternative” to tobacco.
Alexander Russy [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)%5D
In San Francisco, 15.4% of its inhabitants identify as LGBT. So Juul is promoting vaping as a healthier alternative for a population with higher-than-average smoking rates.
The company’s website boasts: “JUUL Labs was founded by former smokers, James and Adam, with the goal of improving the lives of the world’s one billion adult smokers by eliminating cigarettes.
“We envision a world where fewer people use cigarettes, and where people who smoke cigarettes have the tools to reduce or eliminate their consumption entirely, should they so desire.”
According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids:
VaporVanity.com [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)%5D
According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the reasons for the popularity of Juul’s e-cigarettes include:
Juul sales have grown dramatically and now comprise over 70% of the U.S. e-cigarette market.
But Juul faces a potentially devastating crisis: The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention warned on September 6 that Americans should not smoke e-cigarettes.
The reason: Hundreds of people have become sick and at least six people have died from lung disease related to vaping.
According to a news story on the September 6 edition of the PBS Newshour:
“As many as 450 people, including 215 cases formally reported to the CDC, in 33 states have reported possible pulmonary disease after using e-cigarette devices, liquids, refill pods and cartridges.”
“Symptoms of this pulmonary disease include shortness of breath, fatigue, fever and nausea or vomiting.”
“While this investigation is ongoing, people should not use e-cigarette products,” said Dana Meaney-Delman, who oversees the CDC investigation.
The Annals of Internal Medicine report that at least 10.8 million adults are estimated to use e-cigarette products in the United States.
Of those, 15% said they had never smoked cigarettes.
Many chemicals and additives are present in e-cigarettes. And medical professionals don’t know what chemicals, or combinations of chemicals, could lead people to sicken and/or die.
The office of the U.S. Surgeon General warns: Besides nicotine, e-cigarettes can contain such harmful ingredients as:
And while Juul touts its product as a safe alternative for those who want to quit smoking, the advice offered by the CDC is totally different: “Adult smokers who are attempting to quit should use evidence-based smoking cessation treatments, including counseling and FDA-approved medications.”
Many critics of the San Francisco moratorium have argued: “Even if people can’t get e-cigarettes legally, they’ll get them illegally. Or they’ll buy them in bay Area cities that don’t ban them.”
And that is true.
As with any banned product for which there is big demand, legions of suppliers—legal or illegal—will happily keep them supplied.
At best, cities, states and the Federal Government will pass laws regulating where e-cigarettes can be smoked.
Meanwhile, those who want to risk their health inhaling—and exhaling—poisonous vapors will do so. They cannot be stopped—except when their bodies give out.
Which, for legions of e-cigarette smokers, is now starting to happen.
Share this: