A Canadian marijuana activist who sold cannabis seeds over the internet has just been sentenced to five years in jail in Seattle. American authorities have long described Marc Emery as one of the countries most wanted drug traffickers, and now he faces a lengthy prison sentence.
However, upon his conviction, the DEA released this press release, to wit:
Italics mine. The final paragraph is also telling:
Is it just me, or is this a completely inappropriate position for a law enforcement agency to take. He broke the law, so he should be punished. But apparently the DEA sees itself not just as the enforcer of the law, but an agency with a remit to influence what the law should be?
Well if pot were legalized, the DEA would have to move on and fight actual drug traffickers. You know, the kind who shoot back.
Emery will be a hero in jail and he’ll have five years in which to network and learn from his mistakes. The only hope the DEA has is if he comes back to BC in five years, smokes some really good bud and gets so wasted he forgets who he is.
This press release, if it is real, is five years old. This is the version from the DEA website, and does not mention the legalisation movement. Even if it did, Karen Tandy is no longer administrator of the DEA, so her opinions are no longer an issue.
Well clearly the people who spend their lives in attempts to fight the marijuana drug war are not going to be happy if the government says, “Thanks for the help, but its legal now. You have accomplished little to nothing.”
Huh. I came in thinking this might touch on the raids we had here in Las Vegas last week. The raids carried out by masked men who were executing secret search warrants. The raids where the feds forced local authorities to help them, despite the fact that no local or state laws were being broken.
ETA: This story has a link to one of the search warrants that was apparently served. WTF? The warrant lists all kinds of legal things, like “money” that is to be seized. Okay, maybe the logic is that it’s being used in the commission of a crime, so it’s “evidence”. But what about the things seized that weren’t listed, like the iPods and PlayStation, but leave growing apparatus? And how in the world can a search warrant list “and other miscellaneous items”? I thought a warrant had to clearly state what was being searched for; is that incorrect?
So much for Obama’s directive for the feds to not interfere with medical marijuana. :mad:
If you want to have a good laugh, look up Tommy Chong’s story of the DEA raid on his house and the ensuing trial. Hysterical. He was essentially tried and convicted of making law enforcement “look bad” in his comedy.
It says, “…and other miscellaneous items used to grow marijuana.” That’s specific enough to meet constitutional requirements.
An iPod falls under “Any computer; computer systems and related peripherals; flash memory devices, and other storage mediums [sic]…” I imagine a PlayStation does too, but not owning one, I don’t know for sure.
America has a long history of using the law to go after people they don’t like or symbolic people like Tommy Chong, who got imprisoned because he lent money to his son to start a bong-manufacturing business. The thing they didn’t like about Emery was the amount of money and smarts he put into the legalise cannabis campaign. He should have just kept a low profile and sold his seeds like the other Canadian seed merchants or the guys in Amsterdam but he didn’t. He was actually warned several times to stop funding the legalisation movement as were a couple of other seed guys who were doing similar things. They backed off, Emery increased his support and so they busted him. I’m told he’s a really nice guy. I hope he does OK in the US prison system, wouldn’t wish that on anyone.
I imagine there are folks who enforced prohibition who were doing so because it was the law of the land not because they had a deep and abiding belief that alcohol was evil. I imagine that most of them drank as much as the next guy after prohibition wasw repealed and several of them drank that much BEFORE prohibition was repealed.
I’m skeptical about the story because the proponents of it (above) appear to have faked the text of the DEA press release in order to provide support for their claim.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4639.html
This is his own website. I haven’t read any further than this, it was the firsst google hit, but it looks like the original report must be fairly accurate, no?
I’m mildly skeptical too, probably less so than you, but still . . . The evidence linked to above appears to be from a multi-page fax with no provenance. Despite my utter disgust for the DEA, I’m going to need better proof than that.
Pot will get the nod in Cali because they desperately need the tax revenues. Making it legal there would solve their budget crisis over night - ok, virtually over night.
You know politicians can’ resist cash. They just don’t want to be the ones to say 'smoke ‘em if you got em’. That’s why there’s a referendum on the ballot.
I know there is a lot of opposition to the idea, but my gut feeling is that this is a done deal.
CA will then be a hub for all of the neighboring states like Nevada and Arizona. It’s not like WA and OR need any help though. Here in NJ we finally got out medical marijuana bill passed and signed, it’s just that Rutgers doesn’t want to grow the stuff so they have to find another source.
Ain’t necessarily so. The statement on the DEA website id from the agent-in-charge in Seattle; the statement in the OP is from the DEA administrator, Ms. Tandy, and appears to be a scan of a faxed copy of the paper press release. Ms. Tandy’s statement is described elsewhere in the press.
It’s important to remember that, as far as the DEA and the rest of the federal government are concerned, the “marijuana legalization movement” is a multi-state conspiracy to defy federal law, not a legitimate effort to change the law. The DEA and its administrators have historically opposed any efforts to legalize marijuana or any other currently illegal drug, but that’s the kind of person I’d expect to be working there, y’know?
There’s something really strange about this: Why would the DEA put out two different press releases, by two different authors, with two different wordings, but describing the same event, on the same day?
ETA: Only the version that does NOT mention the legalization movement appears on the DEA website.
