Feds Lay Off

MacMota

MacMota

Well-Known Member
I don't know if anyone has seen this story but apparently, the Obama administration is issuing a memo telling federal prosecutors to stop going after medical marijuana users and dispencaries that are following their state laws.
New Medical Marijuana Policy Issued
 
WOW maybe Obama will do something to actually earn his NOBEL Peace prize ....LOL
 
I really find it pretty wasteful that the Federal Government uses my tax dollars to arrest and jail people for smoking Marijuana. I can think of 100 things that the money could be better spent on.
 
MacMota said:
I don't know if anyone has seen this story but apparently, the Obama administration is issuing a memo telling federal prosecutors to stop going after medical marijuana users and dispencaries that are following their state laws.
New Medical Marijuana Policy Issued
Click to expand...

My Friends this is a copy of the letter Eric Holder sent to US Attorneys

October 19th, 2009 Posted by Tracy Russo
Today Attorney General Eric Holder announced formal guidelines for federal prosecutors in states that have enacted laws authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Those guidelines are contained in a memo from Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden which was sent to United States Attorneys this morning.

The text of this memo is provided below for reference. You may also download a PDF version of the memo by asking wingman580

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-


October 19,2009

MEMORANDUM FOR SELECTED UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

FROM: David W. Ogden, Deputy Attorney General

SUBJECT: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana

This memorandum provides clarification and guidance to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana. These laws vary in their substantive provisions and in the extent of state regulatory oversight, both among the enacting States and among local jurisdictions within those States. Rather than developing different guidelines for every possible variant of state and local law, this memorandum provides uniform guidance to focus federal investigations and prosecutions in these States on core federal enforcement priorities.

The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime and provides a significant source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. One timely example underscores the importance of our efforts to prosecute significant marijuana traffickers: marijuana distribution in the United States remains the single largest source of revenue for the Mexican cartels.

The Department is also committed to making efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources. In general, United States Attorneys are vested with "plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters" within their districts. USAM 9-2.001. In exercising this authority, United States Attorneys are "invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority." Id. This authority should, of course, be exercised consistent with Department priorities and guidance.

The prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority in the Department's efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the Department's investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department's core enforcement priorities.

Typically, when any of the following characteristics is present, the conduct will not be in clear and unambiguous compliance with applicable state law and may indicate illegal drug trafficking activity of potential federal interest:

-unlawful possession or unlawful use of firearms;
-violence;
-sales to minors;
-financial and marketing activities inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of state law, including evidence of money laundering activity and/or financial gains or excessive amounts of cash inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
-amounts of marijuana inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
-illegal possession or sale of other controlled substances; or
-ties to other criminal enterprises.
Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of factors above is not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal prosecution may be warranted. Accordingly, in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, federal prosecutors are not expected to charge, prove, or otherwise establish any state law violations. Indeed, this memorandum does not alter in any way the Department's authority to enforce federal law, including laws prohibiting the manufacture, production, distribution, possession, or use of marijuana on federal property. This guidance regarding resource allocation does not "legalize" marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter. Nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law or the absence of one or all of the above factors create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion.

Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution where there is a reasonable basis to believe that compliance with state law is being invoked as a pretext for the production or distribution of marijuana for purposes not authorized by state law. Nor does this guidance preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests.

Your offices should continue to review marijuana cases for prosecution on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the guidance on resource allocation and federal priorities set forth herein, the consideration of requests for federal assistance from state and local law enforcement authorities, and the Principles of Federal Prosecution.

cc: All United States Attorneys

Lanny A. Breuer
Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division

B. Todd Jones
United States Attorney
District of Minnesota
Chair, Attorney General's Advisory Committee

Michele M. Leonhart
Acting Administrator
Drug Enforcement Administration

H. Marshall Jarrett
Director
Executive Office for United States Attorneys

Kevin L. Perkins
Assistant Director
Criminal Investigative Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation



Basically if you are a State licensed MMJ patient or Caregiver and stay within state MMJ guidelines you are immune from prosecution and arrest federally.

Good Luck
 
People, PLEASE STOP MAKING COMMENTS THAT ARE INACCURAT!!! You need to read the letter again. There is absolutly nothing in the letter that says you are safe from federal prosocution, as a mater of fact it says if they want to they can EVEN IF YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. The entire letter is simply a bunch of political babble, speaking out of both sides of their mouth in an atttempt to make you believe that they are doing something for you. Anyone who reads the letter and believes that they are safe from the Fed's is a fool.
 
Y Not Just Provide What U Feel is Correct/Accurate

GFMtCareGiver said:
People, PLEASE STOP MAKING COMMENTS THAT ARE INACCURAT!!! You need to read the letter again. There is absolutly nothing in the letter that says you are safe from federal prosocution, as a mater of fact it says if they want to they can EVEN IF YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. The entire letter is simply a bunch of political babble, speaking out of both sides of their mouth in an atttempt to make you believe that they are doing something for you. Anyone who reads the letter and believes that they are safe from the Fed's is a fool.
Click to expand...

The above quote brings no more clarity than before u posted. Please be specific. Personally I don't have a problem with correction if I'm wrong and the other party is respectful. If u have anything to add that's beneficial please share.
 
GFMtCareGiver said:
People, PLEASE STOP MAKING COMMENTS THAT ARE INACCURAT!!! You need to read the letter again. There is absolutly nothing in the letter that says you are safe from federal prosocution, as a mater of fact it says if they want to they can EVEN IF YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. The entire letter is simply a bunch of political babble, speaking out of both sides of their mouth in an atttempt to make you believe that they are doing something for you. Anyone who reads the letter and believes that they are safe from the Fed's is a fool.
Click to expand...

Wingman580 said:
An excerpt from the letter posted here earlier written by,
David W.Ogden Deputy Attorney General:
As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department’s core enforcement priorities.

Typically, when any of the following characteristics is present, the conduct will not be in clear and unambiguous compliance with applicable state law and may indicate illegal drug trafficking activity of potential federal interest:

•unlawful possession or unlawful use of firearms;
•violence;
•sales to minors;
•financial and marketing activities inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of state law, including evidence of money laundering activity and/or financial gains or excessive amounts of cash inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
•amounts of marijuana inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
•illegal possession or sale of other controlled substances; or
•ties to other criminal enterprises.
Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of factors above is not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal prosecution may be warranted. Accordingly, in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, federal prosecutors are not expected to charge, prove, or otherwise establish any state law violations. Indeed, this memorandum does not alter in any way the Department’s authority to enforce federal law, including laws prohibiting the manufacture, production, distribution, possession, or use of marijuana on federal property. This guidance regarding resource allocation does not “legalize” marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter. Nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law or the absence of one or all of the above factors create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion.

Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution where there is a reasonable basis to believe that compliance with state law is being invoked as a pretext for the production or distribution of marijuana for purposes not authorized by state law. Nor does this guidance preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests.

Your offices should continue to review marijuana cases for prosecution on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the guidance on resource allocation and federal priorities set forth herein, the consideration of requests for federal assistance from state and local law enforcement authorities, and the Principles of Federal Prosecution.

cc: All United States Attorneys

Lanny A. Breuer
Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division

B. Todd Jones
United States Attorney
District of Minnesota
Chair, Attorney General’s Advisory Committee

Michele M. Leonhart
Acting Administrator
Drug Enforcement Administration

H. Marshall Jarrett
Director
Executive Office for United States Attorneys

Kevin L. Perkins
Assistant Director
Criminal Investigative Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Click to expand...



This letter clearly states what will trigger investigatory action, legal redress, & prosecutorial conduct, as it relates to those who are in compliance vs those who will use this law to mask other interests eg; drug trafficking, etc.
I had my Attorney read and interpret after 59 years at the Bar trying Federal and State Cases across many jurisdictions and boundaries he concludes that if "one has a bona fide debilitating medical condition and in conjunction with his/ her Dr who has routinely overseen that persons care finds fit to use and license themselves with State agencies, does not possess more than legal limits, and is not involved in any other criminal activity, does not own illegal firearms, or engage in other nefarious behaviors specifically listed here or in other Federal and State Statutes they are subject to a case by case review by the US Attorney to deem if they are indeed within the State's rights and may be exempt by behavior and State license to the federal prosecution of Medical Marijuana" he also claimed if the Feds want to bust you they will on other charges maybe not related to legal use of MMJ.

It is clear to many that while not an endorsement of State MMJ laws this administration has made positive steps to recognize and respect States rights and individual choices that do not harm children or society.

I stand by my earlier statements on this thread, but if arrested I will pursue my rights in Federal Court through the Trial process.

It was never my intention to break the law and I and many others are doing all we can to operate within the aegis of RI State Licensing and Statutes.

I fully respect the rights of the public not to see, smell, have their children, or anyone, unnecessarily exposed to MMJ procedures and practices. As it is spelled out in the Statute there is legal redress for these infractions.

As the public should, by legislative decree, respect my right to use MMJ in an effort to medically improve the quality of my life without more suffering and sickness. This can take place as legislated while not inflicting the dangers of such therapy to the citenzry at large.

Sincerely and Altruistically Submitted
Wingman580
 
it's about bloody time the states administration caught up with the rest of the world regarding medicinal users and cannabis. :cool:
 

Similar threads

Pinch
DEA Done With Medical Cannabis - OBAMA!
Replies
0
Views
2K
Pinch
Pinch
Jacob Bell
Fed Memo has Marijuana Patients on "Red Alert"
Replies
2
Views
2K
demp5294
demp5294
Jacob Bell
Fed Memo has Marijuana Patients on "Red Alert"
Replies
0
Views
948
Jacob Bell
Jacob Bell
420
New Medical Marijuana Policy Issued
Replies
9
Views
1K
Jim Finnel
Jim Finnel
420
New Medical Marijuana Policy Issued
2 3
Replies
52
Views
8K
GanjaAL2
G
Back
Top Bottom