Eric Holder…and All’a That

So this came out

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/HolderMandatoryMinimumsMemo.pdf

and now everyone’s a twitter. Well, some folks I guess. I don’t tweet. So therefore “everyone” can’t be correct. And just what is correct?

In this “ground breaking” memorandum Mr. Holder references two precedent cases to state his opinion. The first (Alleyne v. United States) is related to facts related to mandatory minimum sentencing. Basically, the SCOTUS ruling (5-4) states that the activity doesn’t have to be presented before a jury – the activity that would prompt the minimum.

You can read the ruling here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alleyne-v-united-states/

The second case mentioned is the U.S. v. LaBonte. This relates to maximums. Something about a prosecutor having the where-with-all to push for the max, or not.

Again, I offer the cite (site?):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1726.ZO.html

Theres’ an old adage in the criminal world, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.” And now I wonder exactly what crime draws what time.

Obviously, that’s at the whim of the judicial system.
And maybe they’re broke and might be thinking mandatory sentencing is costing waaay too many dollars, these day.

Cultivation of 150 pot plants will get you more time than 50. If no one mentions the number of plants (shrug, wink-wink) then no one need talk about mandatory minimums (secret handshake).

And this is all okay because everyone knows it’s only “people of color” that go to jail for dope anyway, right? So it’s kind of like a civil rights thing, right? Killing a Crow by another name (see:Jim Crow laws).

Good stuff. Right?

And now the Attorney General of these United States is saying he’d rather kick back and see how this whole cannabis legalization thing turns out in Washington and Colorado. Look here:

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-opa-974.html

Holy moly! You mean it’s finally over?! After 73 years of hemp prohibition it’s finally over?! Hallelujah!

Sorry.
No.

When I was in junior high school (8th grade) I had a class called “Government.” No really, it was a real class. That was were I memorized that whole, “We the people…” and learned a bunch of stuff about our system of government. True, I’ve forgotten most of it, but I seem to remember something about three branches. There’s the Executive, Judicial and Legislative.

The Legislative branch makes the laws of the land. The Department of Justice is the enforcement part of the Executive branch.

The whole intent of three branches of government is (was?) an attempt to “separate powers.” apparently, there’s no bright line in that separation. I’m quite sure my eighth grade teacher is currently rolling over in her grave (she was quite old at the time of my schooling).

All of those links above; all of the memorandums and quoting of legal precedents? They don’t mean squat. Not a damned thing.

As I type, marijuana is a schedule I controlled substance.
Holder, Cole, whomever can write all of the memos they care to. Policy can be stated as this that or another thing.

Until such time as the POTUS (yes, he can) or Congress pull marijuana from schedule I none of it means a damned thing.
Nada.
Squat.

Though, then again, maybe it does mean we got ’em on the ropes.

There is that. ☺

Advertisements

7 Comments

  1. September 15, 2013 at 4:44 pm

    I would think it to be some sort of loop hole attempt so that the banks can actuall put their hands on the money they said they would’t touch. funny how that cash thing works.

    • capndrift said,

      September 15, 2013 at 8:15 pm

      It was the Feds who advised the banking system handling money from the sales of a schedule I drug could be construed as them being complicit in the crime of money laundering.

      Now, there’s talk of not only “fixing” that, but also “fixing” section 280E of the tax code.

  2. David Maupin said,

    September 15, 2013 at 7:51 pm

    And then maybe They have Us on the ropes, last month it was Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) calling for heavy regulation Medical Marijuana: , and now Christopher Hurst of Enumclaw, a Democratic legislator who wants to shut down Medical Marijuana in Washington entirely: . I think we patients may not be allowed to grow our own medication by this time next year if not sooner thanks to ‘reconciliation’ of Medical and Recreational Marijuana to appease the Fed..

    • capndrift said,

      September 15, 2013 at 8:49 pm

      Here’s a link to Senator Leahy’s statement in the matter:

      http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/senate-judiciary-committee-holds-oversight-hearing-on-federal-marijuana-policy

      Frankly, David, I find the dialogue refreshing. As I stated before, the only ‘real change’ in the law has to come from the POTUS or Congress. The Senate Judiciary Committee certainly qualifies as
      part or portion of Congress.

      We had this talk the other day over regular email, Dave. The issue with medicinal cannabis in the state of Washington revolves around illegal dispensaries. The state wants to put an end to them for two reasons.

      1. Medicinal sales are seen as being in competition with recreational. Recreational will be taxed. Some (some) dispensaries pay taxes to their local municipalities, but that amount is paltry compared to what the state expects to rake.

      Gator’s right-on here, it -is- all about the money.

      2. Though some municipalities turn a blind eye to the illegal dispensing (and it is illegal) the state can’t tolerate it. The Feds have advised they’ll stay out of the way provided state laws are monitored and enforced. This Wild West “Joe’s Collective” crap aint gonna pass the muster, man.

      They have to go, or state legislation has to be passed allowing medicinal sales. And, again, that law(s) must be monitored and enforced.

      Even though Colorado’s medicinal cannabis program has been reported as lacking in tracking, etc. I haven’t heard anything about the Feds jumping into the middle of it. Sure, there’s been some dispensary/cultivator busts, but even I wonder if some of those operations were on the up-and-up.

      I haven’t any fear of having our fifteen plants taken from us, Dave. Not all of them, anyway. If the state wants to limit ‘patients’ then I think they’ll modify the 60 day supply of 1 1/2 pounds.

      Hey, let’s make this interesting: I’ll bet… Ooop, wait a minute. Online betting is illegal isn’t it? Never mind.

  3. David Maupin said,

    September 16, 2013 at 6:39 am

    Sure, the Medical Dispensaries have to go, illegal Co-operatives too, or the law has to be changed to provide for and regulate them. When the pendulum swings it generally swings too far. I think patients will be very lucky if we escape this next round with the ability grow any of our own personal medication at home, let alone 15 plants and a 60 day supply. I’m reluctant to even replace my worn out light bulbs right now! We have a bet then, if I win we all lose!
    I posted links to both the Leahy and Hurst stories in my post here but they didn’t come though,you don’t allow links in comments?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: