Through my sources I managed to secure a copy of a damning letter John Conyers - Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee - has sent on to the Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) requesting information on widespread raids which have gone down in the Los Angeles area since last fall.
The DEA has been targeting "pot" dispensaries that have been providing medicinal marijuana to California residents legally entitled to use the leafy product under current law in the State.
At issue, are shocking enforcement raids in which DEA Agents were prone to defiantly engage in abusive conduct - and on many occasions - act in direct Violation of individual rights.
In spite of the fact California voters approved a measure to allow the compassionate use of cannabis for medicinal purposes several years ago by ballot, the DEA responded by accusing the suppliers of being engaged in an "...illegal sale of an illicit drug which is outlawed by the Federal Government."
Although local officials (West Hollywood City Council & Los Angeles Board of Supervisors) held emergency meetings with local law enforcement to try to stave off future arrests until the conflicts in State & Federal Statutes could be resolved - bottom line - the FEDS ignored the good-faith attentions of the many to actively pursue the matter in a cavalier abusive manner.
Over the past few months, I not only reported on the outrageous DEA tactics, but also attended a handful of the spirited rallies in front of Governor Schwarzenegger's downtown office in Los Angeles and the DEA headquarters on Temple Street, respectively.
The protests fell on deaf ears.
Posts:
Pot Post (9/13/07)
Rally (10/10/07)
DEA Raids (10/12/07)
DEA Protest (3/24/07)
Consequently, thousands of complaints from U.S. Citizens - and grass-roots organizers and attorneys at Americans for Safe Access - have resulted in the launching of an investigation by Chairman John Conyers at the House Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C.
In his letter to Acting DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart, Mr. Conyers starts off by stating as follows,
"I am writing to you because I have received a number of letters from Californians, including mayors and city councils, expressing concern about DEA enforcement tactics which urge me to hold oversight hearings in the Judiciary Committee."
Mr. Conyers goes on to characterize the actions of the DEA as follows,
"According to the letters, the DEA has dramatically intensified the frequency of paramilitary-style enforcement raids against individuals qualified to use medical cannabis under state law, their caregivers, and the dispensing collectives established to provide a safe place to access medical cannabis."
He goes on to note that he is aware that the DEA sent out "hundreds of letters to property owners who lease property to medical cannabis dispensaries, threatening them with arrest, and forfeiture of property."
At this juncture, Mr. Conyers made a surprising overture to the Acting DEA head, with the specific aim of determining the facts from the horse's mouth - so-to-speak - prior to the commencement of the formal investigation.
In his communication, Conyers has asked that Michele Leonhart answer the following queries:
Question No. 1:
Is the use of civil asset forfeiture, which has been typically reserved for the worst drug traffickers and kingpins, an appropriate tactic to employ against individuals who suffer from severe or chronic illness and are authorized to use medical marijuana under California Law?
Has the DEA conducted any analysis of the potential economic consequences of using civil asset forfeiture in an area that is experiencing some of the Nation's sharpest declines in property values?
Lastly, has the DEA considered the consequences of shutting down legally-operated public dispensaries and whether that might drive the cannabis sales activity underground?
Question No. 2
Given the increased level of trafficking and violence associated with international drug cartels across Mexico, South America, and elsewhere, do you think the DEA's limited resources are best utilized conducting enforcement raids on individuals and their caregivers who are conducting themselves legally under California Law?
Question No. 3
Have you considered that DEA activities against qualified individuals is negatively impacting the ability of state and local officials across California to collect tax revenue which they are entitled to under California Law?
Question No. 4
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 arguing 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 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.
Question No. 5
Would you support the creation of an inter-governmental commission comprised of law enforcement, law makers and people affected by the laws, to review policy and provide recommendations that aim to bring harmony to federal and state laws?
In closing, Mr. Conyers included a list of approximately sixty raids that the DEA conducted between June 2005 and November 2007.
In reference to those raids, Mr. Conyers has asked that the DEA provide an accounting of costs, in dollars and resources, used to conduct the law enforcement raids on said individuals.
Included in the package of information, Mr. Conyers has asked: whether arrests were made in the course of the raids, and if so, how many people were arrested; under what circumstances the warrants were issued; and for what content, whether criminal or other charges have been brought by the DOJ; what, if any, content was seized or destroyed; and finally, the current status of each case.
A response has been requested prior to a deadline date set for July 1, 2008.
As usual, the DEA has "no comment", pursuant to their ongoing policy not to speak with the media regarding such matters.
