The Pot Problem: Varying Approaches Creating Confu

The Pot Problem: Varying Approaches Creating Confu
Posted by FoM on February 14, 2000 at 07:54:11 PT
Source: Record Searchlight
We're trying to understand all of this medical marijuana news that is swirling around us here in the north state, and we suspect you are, too. So, try to work through this with us.First things first.
OK, Superior Court Judge Bradley Boeckman -after a Shasta County jury clears medicinal marijuana user Richard Levin of possessing pot - orders Shasta County Sheriff Jim Pope to return to Levin all of his confiscated possessions, including any marijuana. Pope does what appears to be a delaying strategy, defies the judge's order and instead calls in federal drug agents and gives them the marijuana instead of giving it to Levin. Pope says marijuana possession is illegal under federal law and states that he's going to enforce those federal laws, no matter what Boeckman ordered. No doubt he thinks little of the judge's order and no doubt he thinks even less of a state intiative passed by voters in 1996-Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act - making it legal for people to use marijuana for medical reasons with a doctor's recommendation. Like it or not, it is a state law.Pope's actions prompted Levin's attorney, Eric Berg, to ask Boeckman to hold Pope in contempt of court for defying the judge's order. It's going to be most interesting to see how this little legal issue plays out. Just a few days ago, Shasta County District Attorney McGregor Scott, for reasons he refuses to discuss, decides not to prosecute a disabled Vietnam War veteran, Dan Craig, for possession of marijuana. Craig was charged in September 1999 by the Redding Police Department. Craig, by the way and just like Levin, has a doctor's recommendation. When the district attorney made it known that charges against Craig were being dropped, Redding Police Chief Bob Blankenship conferred with the city attorney's office and quickly had his officers return to Craig what is rightly his, including his marijuana, and showed respect for the previously mentioned state law legally adopted by voters. The chief didn't call in the feds.This is most confusing and it raises two relevant questions in our mind: Can a sheriff sworn to uphold state law blatantly defy a Superior Court judge's order?And if the sheriff called and dragged federal drug agents to town, why didn't the police chief do the same thing? As John Wayne once said in a movie, "This little fracas isn't over yet." Published: February 13, 20002000 Redding Record Searchlight - E.W. ScrippsNews Article Courtesy Of MapInc. New MapInc. Archives: Search For MapInc: Articles from Redding Record Searchlight:Ex-Spouse May Talk in Pot Case Says She Used Pot To Ease Pain Police Won't Return Med. Marijuana to Vet's Hands Tied's Marijuana Charge Dropped Patients Find Pot is an Arresting Experience 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #3 posted by Santor on February 14, 2000 at 19:37:16 PT
Federal Law
 It's interesting to note that federal laws prohibit possession with intent to sell or distribute, they do not prohibit personal possession.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by j christen-mitchell on February 14, 2000 at 16:30:19 PT:
"Everyone hears only what he understands." -Goethe
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on February 14, 2000 at 16:01:58 PT
The only way they'll listen
You could issue them all hearing aids. Stand in front of them at shift formation and read from the law through a bullhorn. Hand them out flyers printed in Basic English, which looks like your first grader's reading primer. Use skywriters. Flash cards. Whatever. Some still won't get the message. Some still will be tempted to feign deafness. Or poor vision.But, if you did as Patton did (on asssuming command of Third Army) hit the transgressors in the wallet, then they listen. They listen real good.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment

Name: Optional Password: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: