Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
We all need to support Charles Lynch, whose trial on drug charges is scheduled to begin July 22nd. Lynch ran a licensed marijuana dispensary in Morro Bay, CA, perfectly legal under that state's medical marijuana law. He was arrested last year on Federal drug charges and faces - get this - 100 years in prison. Why? Because he dispensed medical marijuana to a 17 year old, with his parents' permission (they went with him to get it, again as required by California law) for treating the symptoms of his bone cancer.
This is absolute insanity, and let's lay this insanity right at the feet of the people to blame: Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Kennedy and Stevens. Those six justices voted with the majority in Raich and upheld the primacy of the federal Controlled Substances Act over state medical marijuana laws. These are the justices who perversely decided that a constitutional provision giving congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce also gives them the power to regulate an activity that is neither interstate nor commerce.
Let's also place the blame on the Bush administration, which has zealously enforced the CSA against those following their own state law. The Supreme Court may have given them the authority to enforce the CSA over the laws of California, but the DEA still has the authority to put their resources into other areas and the DOJ still has prosecutorial discretion not to press such charges.
People are suffering from a myriad of diseases, and sometimes for the treatment of those diseases by chemotherapy, and that suffering can be reduced by using marijuana. This is all but indisputable. That we are allowing them to suffer in the name of the war on personal freedom drugs is cruel. That we are imprisoning those who seek to help ease that suffering is unjust and barbaric.
Politics
Comments
This...they...what?!
He's been arrested and tried for doing something which is perfectly legal in his state, after following all the rules the state had put down?
The mind boggles.
I don't understand how this came to pass either - how can you have something legal in a US state yet illegal in the US as a whole, including that state? It makes no sense...
Posted by: Andrew | July 21, 2008 9:59 AM
The statement "Those six justices voted with the majority in Raich and upheld the primacy of the federal Controlled Substances Act over state medical marijuana laws." is misleading since the state medical marijuana laws were not made invalid.
States are allowed under our Constitution to have laws which differ from federal law, to include laws that say that a state will not enforce a federal law.
In California, for example, the state Constitution requires all state entities; i.e., all governments, police departments, etc. to obey and follow state law. Proposition 215 is still valid state law.
The confusion created by statements which do not recognize that states may have laws which differ from federal law in the media is, unfortunately, common.
Posted by: Richard Lake | July 21, 2008 10:14 AM
TEH WAR ON TERROR ISNT WERKIN. BUT THARS TEH WAR ON DRUGS! DOAN FORGET NANCY REAGAN!!! [/sarcasm]
This is why being put on a list is really a dangerous thing... (And I'm talking about the ramifications of putting Mary Jane on a list.)
Posted by: Umlud | July 21, 2008 10:17 AM
OK, I'm still confused, supose California state police were at this guys house at the same time as DEA Agents, you would have two sets of 'police' onliged to follow different and contradictory laws. What happens if he asks the state police to protect him from being imprisoned for his legal activities? would they be obliged to do so or can police refuse to protect a citizen from an action that from those officers point of view is illegal.
Posted by: Matty | July 21, 2008 11:15 AM
They will then also have to arrest the governing bodies of CA for aiding and abetting said criminal.
I look forward to THAT criminal case.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 21, 2008 11:21 AM
Wow. Speaking as a future doctor and as a parent, what a fucking shame. This boy could easily get a prescription for any of a variety of opiates, including IV morphine. Bush and his cronies must REALLY hate hippies.
Posted by: Hilary | July 21, 2008 11:25 AM
Posted by: Tom | July 21, 2008 11:35 AM
"This boy could easily get a prescription for any of a variety of opiates, including IV morphine."
Sorry, I'm a bit thick lately. Serious lack of understanding: do you mean that he should get IV morphine or that it's nuts that he can get something so heavy and addictive when something as mellow and barely addictive as marijuana is available?
Posted by: jba | July 21, 2008 12:05 PM
Will one of the obscurantist jackasses who seem to be so fond of waving this idea around kindly confirm or deny whether it means anything more than "you can't sue them if they don't come through?"
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 21, 2008 12:25 PM
Richard Lake wrote:
You're missing the point. Raich declared that the Federal government can enforce the Controlled Substances Act regardless of California law. So while it may not have voided the law, it means those who follow the law in California risk being arrested by the DEA, just as this man was. My statement was accurate.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 21, 2008 12:27 PM
Kindly explain what law enforcement is for, then.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 21, 2008 12:30 PM
Considering how (potentially) destructive alcohol is when compared to pot, I have never failed to understand how one drug (alcohol is a depressant) can be openly celebrated in the streets, and the other vilified as an evil weed grown by the minions of Satan.
And this is coming from someone who neither drinks, nor has never smoked pot or any other drug.
Posted by: CHV | July 21, 2008 1:15 PM
Sorry, goof on my part. I should have written "I have never understood" instead of "failed to understand" in the above post.
My bad, but my original point still stands.
Posted by: CHV | July 21, 2008 1:18 PM
CHV, part of me has always suspected that, when first implemented, the "War on Drugs" was really just code for "War on Hippies." After all, the New Left was perceived as terribly threatening to the powers that were, and in typical fashion, the Establishment mistakenly assumed that drug use was the underlying cause of rebellion.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 21, 2008 1:31 PM
Two words: "the jury". Good luck to the prosecution getting a conviction based on these facts and circumstances.
OTOH, the prosecution probably also knows a conviction is unlikely, but is pressing forward anyway so as to use the burden of time and money on the defendant as the punishment.
Posted by: divalent | July 21, 2008 1:33 PM
Sadie,
The war against marijuana started long before hippies existed. A charming quote from its father, Harry J. Anslinger at a Senate hearing in 1937: "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."
Posted by: Gretchen | July 21, 2008 1:42 PM
That explains my lack of success. I tried to use alcohol.
Posted by: BaldApe | July 21, 2008 2:00 PM
Oh I know, Gretchen. I've seen "Reefer Madness" (and loved every minute of it, certainly contrary to the producers' expectations). It's just that the timing of the more well-known incarnation of the war (when its enforcers began to really up the ante) makes me suspicious.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 21, 2008 2:14 PM
Two words: "the jury". Good luck to the prosecution getting a conviction based on these facts and circumstances.
In previous cases the defense has been barred from mentioning that the marijuana was medicinal, as the federal government does not consider this relevant to the obvious fact that this man has put a minor on an irreversible path to heroin addiction and prostitution. If he survives the bone cancer, I mean.
Posted by: rob | July 21, 2008 2:14 PM
Frankly the laws against pot do not carry harsh enough punishments. It is also absurd not to realize that federal law trumps state law in all circumstances. That is the American system. States are free to pass any laws that they wish as long as they do not violate federal laws.
As for people who really need pot because of a medical issue then let them check into a fully accredited hospital and get pot administrated by a physician who will keep them confined until the effects of that pot wear completely off.
As for people on the street using pot I suggest a good ten year sentence on a chain gang doing manual labor for the first offense, every time without exceptions even if it is a nine year old kid goofing with pot. A second offense should carry a swift death penalty.
I am not for a nation that allows people to be high, stoned or drunk.
Posted by: jim sadler | July 21, 2008 2:14 PM
Then I am sure that you fully support Islamic dictatorships, right?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 21, 2008 2:20 PM
I am somewhat conflicted by this whole issue. Everyone in the trade knows that the possession or selling of marijuana is a federal offense and that the feds can and will and do enforce that prohibition. Thus to break that law invites prosecution and imprisonment. I am always suspicious of martyrs. I wish the law were otherwise but until such time as it changes I have little sympathy with those who flout it.
Posted by: Stephen Llewellyn | July 21, 2008 2:23 PM
Here's a video about this from Reason. According to the video, California law can't be brought up as a defense since it's a federal case. Hopefully there will be jurors that know the rest of the details and use jury nullifcation to kill it. I hope people lie there way on to the jury and refuse to convict no matter what. Of course, the feds have unlimited funds to prosecute stuff like this. Absolutely nuts.
http://www.reason.tv/video/show/413.html
Posted by: soboco | July 21, 2008 2:24 PM
Sadie,
In that case, I'd say you're dead on. I read Jacob Sullum's book Saying Yes a while back, and he presents a very interesting story of the ideological, religious, and historical contexts in which different drugs have been outlawed. If you're interested in that kind of thing and haven't read it yet, I highly recommend it.
Jim Sadler,
I'll just say that I'm very, very glad you're not running the country, and I hope nobody outlaws whatever you enjoy doing in your spare time. The book mentioned above is recommend to you as well.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 21, 2008 2:26 PM
I have to disagree with Ed about who's ultimately responsible for the prosecution of Charles Lynch. It is much more directly the fault of the federal government for pursuing the war on drugs, and particularly for pursuing it overzealously in order to make an example of well-intentioned folks who are doing things that are legal under state law. And of course it's ultimately the fault of the public for supporting the war on drugs.
But, as much as I hate the war on drugs, I can't disagree with the reasoning of Raich. It follows directly from Wickard v. Filburn, and it would make sense even without that precedent. (1) The federal government gets to regulate certain classes of things that affect interstate commerce (like drugs, or food safety, or air pollution); and (2) in order to have a well-functioning system of regulation, the federal government may need to enact regulations that also end up applying to some things that aren't interstate or commerce (like homegrown weed).
(Actually, even if Raich had come out the other way, it's not clear that that would have prevented the prosecution of Charles Lynch for distributing marijuana to a 17-year-old. That's distinguishable from the facts in Raich, in which the plaintiff grew and smoked her own weed.)
I think it's telling that Scalia and Kennedy as well as the four more liberal Justices formed the majority in Raich -- it was not one of those narrow 5-4 ideological decisions. I also think it's significant that five of those Justices (all but Scalia) are those who in Lawrence defended individual freedom against authoritarian social conservatism. Their decision in Raich wasn't about their views on marijuana.
Posted by: (another guy named) Tom | July 21, 2008 2:26 PM
In my opinion, laws that are completely arbitrary (as are most drug laws in this country) require no moral compulsion on the part of citizens to be respected and followed.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 21, 2008 2:27 PM
To jim sadler:
Its people like you that have no sense about them. You cant seem to see truth nor do you seem to see reason. If youd look at the actual facts and not the garbage that the govt is pushing youd see to that they have been lying for decades. Back in WWII the GOVERNMENT was working on chemical agents to try tto knock enimies out instead of killing them. What, you ask, did they expieriment with? POT The developed something called "red oil" which is comparable to hash oil nowadays. They also discovered many of the MEDICAL BENIFITS of marijuana including its the most efficient and best antispasmatic in the world. This is back in WWII mind you that they knew this. This info is still classisfied by the government and i dont feel itll be released untill this stupid "war" on our own people is bined.
It takes very little to find the truth in just about any circumstanse but morons like you and your ilk will never see the truth past yer own nose. I say those that are instigating this war and those that suport it through the govt's propaganda, and those like you that are just plain idiots should be given 10 years and see how they like to be put away for something that hurts no one. This is the 3rd draft of this response...the 1st 2 werent so nice
Posted by: Chet Biggerstaff | July 21, 2008 2:34 PM
It just occurred to me that the video is on the site you linked to. You really do need to watch it, to get the full effect of what lunacy this is.
Posted by: soboco | July 21, 2008 2:43 PM
arresting the perpetrators after the crime is committed, assuming they can find same.
oh, and drawing a neat chalk outline around your corpse.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | July 21, 2008 3:00 PM
Heres the link to the story on the Militaries use and discoveries related to marijuana
Posted by: Chet Biggerstaff | July 21, 2008 3:01 PM
http://cannabisnews.com/news/24/thread24068.shtml
Posted by: Chet Biggerstaff | July 21, 2008 3:02 PM
Jim Sadler wrote:
It's idiots like you that are the reason why we have this absurd war on personal freedom.
And it's idiots like you who have absolutely no understanding of the constitution. No, federal law does not always trump state law; the federal government is limited in its powers by the constitution. When it oversteps those boundaries, its laws are unconstitutional and should be voided by the courts.
Absolutely ridiculous. By any possible measure, the effects of alcohol are far, far more impairing than pot could ever be no matter how much you smoked. So why aren't you arguing for alcohol prohibition too? Under the California law, medical marijuana is prescribed by a physician.
Funny, I favor that same punishment for fucking morons like you.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 21, 2008 3:03 PM
concerning Jim ---
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/5292/1189960203870cp7.jpg
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | July 21, 2008 3:23 PM
I call poe on the jim sadler comment. Nobody can be that stupid and still use a keyboard. Sorry jim, not enough misspellings and random capitalizations to pass the smell test.
Posted by: Taz | July 21, 2008 3:36 PM
Could be a troll, could be John Ashcroft. The reality is that there are people who think as "Jim Sadler" does, and some of them actually have power.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 21, 2008 3:41 PM
I hope this isn't "Dr. Jim Sadler", douchebag extraordinaire. The spiel above definitely fits his MO.
Posted by: chrisD | July 21, 2008 3:55 PM
Ed,
You are blaming the wrong justices. The commerce clause was expanded to irrational levels when FDR was pushing for his New Deal. FDR claimed that wheat being grown by one family for their own, private use to make bread was insterate commerce and therefore subject to federal regulation.
Posted by: Mike | July 21, 2008 4:50 PM
Tom, answer?
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 21, 2008 5:33 PM
Mike wrote:
I'll gladly blame the justices in Wickard as well. It was a blatantly unconstitutional ruling. So was Raich.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 21, 2008 6:15 PM
The prosecution may be able to prevent the discussion of California state law, but if they can't prevent the 17 year old involved in the case (watch the video) from testifying for the defense, the case is essentially over.
Posted by: Ethanol | July 21, 2008 10:52 PM
Okay, I had to look up this "Dr. Jim Sadler" character, and apparently he's a parody cooked up by some radio talk comedian called Phil Hendrie. I'd never heard of him before, but the descriptions I found on Google sound a lot like the guy above:
http://www.jclw.com/wiki/index.php?title=Dr._Jim_Sadler
Posted by: Wes | July 22, 2008 1:04 AM
Is it me, or are there now more parodies of the nutcases than actual nutcases on the internet.
Someone should do a study.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 22, 2008 3:46 AM
This ridiculous war on drugs shit is spreading to canada too, the harper government keeps trying to find ways to make the (massively successful) safe injection sites (like the one in vancouver) illegal. All because America has a war on drugs and its really not working, so we should blindly copy them too! just insane. fuck. I have to go lie down.
It may be worth mentioning that medicinal marijuana has all the THC removed, its kind of like dealcoholized beer, but medicine!
Posted by: nanoAl | July 22, 2008 3:51 AM
Finally! I Stumbled Upon this website. I've been getting stopthedrugwar.org mail, but this site (I hope) isn't being run by and profited by insider AHoles.
See this
http://www.preciousstuff.biz
Posted by: Bryan Klabunde | July 22, 2008 4:00 AM
"As for people on the street using pot I suggest a good ten year sentence on a chain gang doing manual labor for the first offense, every time without exceptions even if it is a nine year old kid goofing with pot. A second offense should carry a swift death penalty.
I am not for a nation that allows people to be high, stoned or drunk." -sadler
Then you need to GTFO of the USA. Do you not understand that this country is about having the freedom to do whatever you want? (as long as what your doing doesn't infringe upon others freedoms of course)
Im probably just feeding a troll though. :|
Posted by: Will | July 22, 2008 10:33 AM
@ Sadler--
Others have already pointed out that Fed laws don't necessarily trump state laws, but it is not only through the constitution that this occurs.
there is a doctrine known as 'pre-emption' and the most famous example is the Cippolone case, where the cigarette companies successfully argued to the SCOTUS that they could not be sued under state laws, because a federal agency--the FDA--required them to warn consumers about the hazards of the product right on the package. This strategy resulted in cigarette lawsuits being thrown out until it was discovered that the cig companies were manipulating nicotine and other chemicals in the tobacco to increase its addictive properties.
Cannabis has been classified as a schedule I drug by a federal agency, and as such, anyone possessing or using may be prosecuted under federal law, regardless of state laws to the contrary. Until someone argues for preemption of state law and wins [which is unlikely, thank heavens] the current climate, where your medical use is protected until you attract the attention of the feds in certain states, will continue.
This explanation omits considerable detail on the intricacies of pre-emption law, but that is the nut of it. Short of outright legalization, the best solution, we can only re-classify pot as Schedule II or III, or, as Obama has proposed [but can we trust this given FISA?], place pot crimes at the lowest rung of the enforcement ladder.
Cheers.
Posted by: Gurn Blanston | July 22, 2008 4:42 PM
Ed to jim sadler:
Oh, I'm certain he zealously advocates reinstating prohibition, but his excruciatingly good 'net manners didn't allow him to drag the thread off-topic by mentioning alcohol. [/sarcasm]
Posted by: twincats | July 22, 2008 5:20 PM
The law in California is that pot can be used as medicine as recommended by a doctor, period. There is no qualifying condition. This is constitutionally sound as having a qualification of a "catastrophic" condition would potentially violate medical privacy. In any case, doctors commonly prescribe other prescription drugs for things that they know to work but aren't the supposed purpose of the drug. The person who insisted that "any other condition" be added was Dr. Mikuriya, and if you read his research from the 70s-2000s, you'll see he treated many people for conditions such as alcoholism with cannabis.
The problem with proposition 215 is it makes no mention of how to get cannabis. A patient can supposedly possess it, but to sell it in a store is not covered. Also, there is no mention of how much the patient should grow if their doctor tells them to grow cannabis. How is a doctor supposed to know that patient A can grow 6 plants and yield 2 lbs. and patient B can only yield 2 oz.?
There is also a stigma against smoking, but anyone with any sense picks up quickly that the people paying hundreds of dollars an ounce for an herb use it the most efficient way possible which is as vapor, not smoke.
I find it hilarious that the media clutches to reports of cannabis not curing the pain in sunburn vs. other anesthesia studies where they found that it is dose dependent. That is, the more pot, the less pain. Seems like it would be a no-brainer.
Posted by: california-hillbilly | July 22, 2008 6:09 PM
Jim Sadler sounds like the press spokesman for "The American Taliban"
Posted by: mike boutin | July 22, 2008 7:56 PM
soboco what link where you speaking to me?
Posted by: Chet Biggerstaff | July 23, 2008 4:33 PM
As all proper internet denizens should be aware, Poe's Law prevents any such study. The laws of the blogoverse are immutable!
Posted by: Jon | July 24, 2008 1:01 PM
The last line in the article needs an amendment: "That we are imprisoning those who seek to help ease that suffering is unjust and barbaric" should have "but profitable" added to the end.
The private prison industry is a major force in this disturbing trend, not to be taken lightly. They don't really care why someone is thrown in a cage, they just know they make money whenever someone is. That is one of the worst vested interests any company could have, seems to me, and borders on treasonous in my opinion (a company supporting draconian punishments for consensual crimes, which they do, so as to facilitate a steadily increasing incarceration rate for the citizens of the country they're doing business in is a slow-motion attack on that country's citizens in general and should be responded to appropriately).
As to police obligation to protect individuals, the Supreme Court ruled that the police don't have an obligation to protect individual citizens rather they are a general deterrent to crime and are to act as an investigative body after a crime is committed. Still trying to dig up the actual case, but I read it a loooong time ago.
And let's not forget that State's Rights issues were the cause of the Civil War, or maybe I should say "Civil War I". A few years ago the Alabama legislature was close to officially supporting medical marijuana ONLY because it was a State's Rights issue and they were annoyed at the Feds, as most States are. Just last year we had Georgia's governor threatening to use the Georgia National Guard to seize Army Corps of Engineers sites so they could secure enough water to keep Atlanta from going dry, which it very nearly did even after his prayer (for rain) vigil on the steps of the Statehouse (the near-disaster was partly thanks to a major Army Corps. mistake earlier in the year, btw).
I think it was Geronimo who said something like "the US government is a beast with many heads, and one head doesn't know what the others are doing." When those heads start to bite each other we'll have begun our Second Civil War. From seeing more and more stories like this involving disparate issues, I think we may already be in it; it's just a little 'colder' than the first one.
Ultimately, it all comes down to money which is sad and shortsighted and will only help to accelerate our culture's continuing decline. But don't worry about that, check out Angelina's twins instead, they're soooo cute! OMG!!
Posted by: Bubba | July 27, 2008 4:43 PM
Azkyroth wrote:
It means what it says, you lazy prick. You can't sue them. Nobody else can sue them. They can't be prosecuted. There are limits to how they can be disciplined.
Matty asked if the police would be "obliged". I think he understood "duty".
Posted by: (the first guy named) Tom | July 29, 2008 3:59 AM