Medical Marijuana Update

Back in March, I mentioned that the Obama Administration had signaled it would reevaluate the Bush-era policies regarding federal prosecutions of medical marijuana dispensaries.  According to the AP, new guidance is expected to be distributed today to US Attorneys Offices in the 14 states that have legalized medical marijuana.  The general thrust is that legitimate dispensaries are to be allowed to go about their business, while those which are posing as fronts, or are engaged in other criminal activity, are to be prosecuted.

I only have one real problem with this plan, and it’s a problem that I have with other aspects of Obama’s we-need-to-focus-on-the-future-and-put-the-past-behind-us attitude, is that it does nothing with the fact that there’s a Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), which states that the federal government, through the Commerce Clause, is allowed to prosecute marijuana cultivators in states where such is legal.

What is left, then, is an environment where, for the next three-and-a-half years, at least, medical marijuana use in states where it is legal will likely not be prosecuted.  What happens when a new President gets elected, though?  Without getting rid of the Raich precedent, the federal government will still have the ability to change the guidance and start prosecuting medical marijuana cultivators and dispensaries.  Thus, while this is welcome news for those people who provide marijuana to those who receive beneficial treatment through it, it’s not necessarily an “all-clear” signal.

Seeing is Believing

Last week’s revelations that the “President’s Surveillance Program” was–no surprise–a whole hell of a lot larger than anyone admitted (AP via ABCNews) have stoked a little flame under Congressional Democrats, and even under Attorney General Eric Holder:

A senior Justice Department official close to Holder stressed anew yesterday that the attorney general had reluctantly come to lean toward naming a criminal prosecutor from inside the department, after months of reading classified material including a still-secret 2004 CIA inspector general report.  (Washington Post)

And, as noted, it appears the Dems want to get in on the party.

Ms. Feinstein, a Democrat of California, said on “Fox News Sunday” that Mr. Panetta had told senators last month about Mr. Cheney ordering that the program not be disclosed to Congress.

If Congress were kept in the dark, she said on Fox News Sunday, “that’s something that should never, ever happen again.”

Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, a Democrat, said that “absolutely” warranted an investigation.

“The executive branch cannot create programs like this one and keep Congress in the dark,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.” “To give the president unbridled authority goes way beyond the United States Constitution.” (New York Times)

But, like most things involving the amazingly Teflon-coated Bush, anything approaching an investigation resulting in anything that might be beneficial to the country will have to be seen to be believed.

Ted Stevens’ Case to be Dismissed?

According to the NY Times (and others) there is a hearing scheduled today on the government’s motion to have the charges against Ted Stevens thrown out.  When Eric Holder announced last week (link) that the USDOJ would move to dismiss the charges based on prosecutorial misconduct, I was stunned.  It signals a departure from the old ways of doing business, and it signals a reaffirmation that the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  And that burden cannot be sidestepped whenever the case is going poorly.

It was a good decision, even if, as I’m sure many people think, Ted Stevens probably did the things he was accused of.  But “probably” isn’t the standard in a criminal case.  “Probably” is the standard for issuing an indictment.  And it’s similar to the standard present in a civil case.  But “probably” doesn’t cut it when a person’s liberty is at stake.  And so, if the prosecution cannot prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, a conviction should not be imposed on a person.  Throwing a person in jail should be the hardest thing for the government to do, and yet, America has the highest prison population in the world, both in terms of per capita representation (Link:  King’s College, London) and sheer numbers (Link:  King’s College, London).  (Yes, I understand that China’s prison population may be vastly understated.  Link:  Straight Dope, via Wikipedia.)  So one less person in prison is a step in the right direction.

More troubling to me, however, is the district judge’s behavior during the trial.  District Judge Sullivan cited the AUSAs handling the case with contempt of court and harshly criticized them throughout the trial. (Link: LA Times)  But he didn’t stop the proceedings, nor did he grant a mistrial, or anything like that.  Far too often, judges, whether they are appointed or elected, tend to side with the prosecution.  And that can make for a very bitter brand of justice.

I therefore hope that Attorney General Holder’s actions might lead to a reconsideration of what justice means, and that it signals a new direction for this country.  And I hope that, amid all the hoopla, someone takes a look at how judges behave during trial.