|
|
| Asylum in Canada Could Be Sought in Pot Case |
|
Posted by FoM on February 22, 2002 at 13:53:18 PT By Jeremy Hay, Staff Writer Source: Press Democrat 
A Petaluma man facing federal charges that his medical marijuana club is a front for drug dealing said Wednesday he will seek political asylum in Canada if the United States tries to extradite him.Speaking from Vancouver, British Columbia, Kenneth E. Hayes characterized prosecution of medical marijuana activists as "vindictive" and, invoking Benjamin Franklin, said: "Wherever liberty dwells, there be my country." Hayes, who was acquitted last year in a similar case in Sonoma County, called the federal charges "crazy." He also faces drug-related charges in Canada. Hayes was arrested Feb. 12 in Vancouver as federal agents culminated a 10-month investigation with raids at his San Francisco pot club and seven other locations, including his Petaluma home. Drug Enforcement Administration agents said Hayes, 34, heads an organization that grows "large quantities" of marijuana in Canada and the United States, and sells it through the club. Matt Jacobs, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney in San Francisco, declined to say whether the government would press for Hayes' extradition. "We would certainly like him to come here and face the charges," DEA spokesman Richard Meyer said. Hayes' Vancouver attorney, John Conroy, said any claim for political refugee status will be based on Hayes' "well founded fear of persecution by the U.S. government." Hayes, who moved to Vancouver in January with his girlfriend and 3-year-old daughter, faces a maximum of 40 years in prison if convicted of the U.S. charges. Conroy said the U.S. government hasn't asked Canada to return Hayes nor have Canadian officials moved to deport him. "If we get any inkling or suggestion of returning him to the U.S.," he said, "we will assert his refugee claim." Conroy also represents a Santa Monica woman, Renee Boje, who has fought extradition on similar charges since 1999. The Feb. 12 raids resulted in the arrest of three men and the seizure of 8,130 marijuana plants and $58,500 in cash. Hayes denied smuggling and said any marijuana he has grown, bought or sold has been for "medical use by sick and dying people." He also said $900,000 that federal agents tracked over a 16-month period moving through accounts controlled by Hayes and his club, the Harm Reduction Center, were "operating expenses" similar to those incurred by any businesses. Hayes insists he is innocent of the charges but doesn't want to fight them because federal courts have barred defense strategies based on medical uses for marijuana. The federal government doesn't recognize Proposition 215 or similar voter-approved laws in other states that allow medical use of marijuana. Hayes based his successful defense of Sonoma County marijuana charges on the 1996 ballot initiative. As for the federal courts, he said, "if they're going to not tell the truth, why should I come back to face injustice?" Hayes said he uses marijuana to cope with chronic pain from a congenital hip disorder. Canadian authorities, who seized several hundred pot plants from Hayes' Vancouver home, have charged him with growing marijuana with intent to traffic it. Conroy said Canadian courts, particularly in British Columbia -- where pot clubs operate with government cooperation -- have tended to go gently on medical marijuana cases. "In a number of instances they have made it clear that it's a waste of taxpayer money to pursue these cases," he said. Source: Press Democrat, The (CA) Related Articles & Web Site: DEA Raids Medical Marijuana Club Feds Arrest Petaluma Man for Marijuana Federal War Against The Sick Pot Club Crackdown Continues Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #2 posted by DdC on February 22, 2002 at 21:18:57 PT |
| Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:32:00 -0800 From: "D. Paul Stanford" stanford@crrh.org Subject: Fwd: Good argument This is a quote from the California Attorney General's brief (on behalf of the State of California) in the OCBC case on remand in the Northern District of California. "Advancements in science and technology often give lie to the verities of the moment. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was enacted the year before the first commercial microprocessor was introduced. By 1996, the year California adopted the Compassionate Use Act (Prop 215), the Internet and the World Wide Web were skyrocketing. Millions of Americans owned and operated microprocessors in their cars, toys, ovens, as well as in their home and office computers. If the "findings" section of a 1970 law had stated "microprocessor chips have no use in the home", certainly this Court would not refuse to admit evidence that now clearly contradicts that finding. Congress may be wise, but it cannot know the future. When Congress asserts "factual" findings that are plainly contradicted by objective evidence, a court must follow the evidence. At the time of its introduction, the CSA classified marijuana as a drug having no accepted medical use. Times change. The CSA classification is no longer a statement of science, but a hollow phrase bereft of factual support. It should have collapsed upon itself long before the citizens of California adopted Proposition 215. " Donna M. Shea, Esq. "Thought is the blossom; language the bud; action the fruit behind it." DRCNet Editorial: Costs and Consequences by David Borden Lies, Damn Lies, and "The Economic Costs of Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992-1998" [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #1 posted by ekim on February 22, 2002 at 17:38:03 PT:
|
| Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:10:32 -0500
From: "Kevin B. Zeese" Below is a press release and report we are releasing on the Drug Czar's new method of reporting the drug budget. It is really quite unbelievable that the drug czar can say with a straight face that they are not going to count the cost of prosecuting drug cases, judging drug cases, incarcerating drug offenders or the cost of military personnel working on drug enforcement as part of the drug budget. But, they are going to count the cost of alcohol treatment, even though the drug czar has no jurisdiction over alcohol. The result of all these changes will be to cut the drug budget in half and make the split between law enforcement/military and treatment/prevention nearly 50-50 rather than what it really is -- about 70-30. This seems like an obvious attempt to reduce the drug budget in time of recession and deficit spending as well as to reduce the law enforcement and military expenditures -- at least reduce the reporting of these expenditures. No doubt the drug czar is reading the same polls we are and recognizes the public favors treatment and prevention spending to law enforcement spending. The report analyzing this change is also available at http://www.csdp.org. Please feel free to share this with whomever you think will find it of interest. Kevin [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |