Dismiss Notice
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Disclosure:

The statements in this forum have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and are generated by non-professional writers. Any products described are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Website Disclosure:

This forum contains general information about diet, health and nutrition. The information is not advice and is not a substitute for advice from a healthcare professional.

Forfeiting Freedom

Discussion in 'Medical Cannabis: Treatments & Patient Experiences' started by IndianaToker, Feb 9, 2005.

  1. #1 IndianaToker, Feb 9, 2005
    Source: Orange County Register, The (CA)
    Published: Monday, February 7, 2005
    Copyright: 2005 The Orange County Register
    Contact: letters@ocregister.com
    Website: http://www.ocregister.com/

    For a brief period it looked as if federal authorities were going to \t\tleave sick people who use marijuana medicinally alone for a while, at \t\tleast until Raich v. Ashcroft, the medical marijuana case currently \t\tbefore the U.S. Supreme Court, is decided. But it looks as if they're \t\tback.
    \t\t
    \t\tLast week the federal government filed to take by forfeiture the home of \t\tWesley Crosiar, 52, a medical marijuana patient who was growing 134 \t\tplants for himself and six other patients on his five acres of land near \t\tSan Andreas in Calaveras County, in the eastern Sierras southeast of \t\tSacramento.
    \t\t
    \t\tCivil forfeiture, sometimes called seizure, is a process whereby \t\tauthorities can seize property that is alleged to have been used in the \t\tcommission of a crime or represents the proceeds of criminal activity. \t\tIt has often been misused, because property can be seized when the \t\tperson who owns it has not yet been convicted of or even formally \t\tcharged with a crime.
    \t\t
    \t\tThe theory is that the property participated in the alleged crime, but \t\tsince this is a civil rather than a criminal procedure there's no \t\tpresumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the state is light. \t\tAfter decades of abuse both federal and state forfeiture laws have been \t\ttightened slightly in recent years, but they are still too permissive. \t\tThemajor flaw is that the police agency seizing the property gets to \t\tkeep it or the proceeds of selling it, which creates a huge conflict of \t\tinterest and an incentive to get "seizure fever."
    \t\t
    \t\tTo be sure, marijuana cultivation is still illegal under federal law, \t\talthough cultivation for medical use is legal under California law. But \t\tbefore Californians passed Proposition 215 in 1996, the feds hardly ever \t\twent after cultivation that involved fewer than 1,000 plants.
    \t\t
    \t\tThis forfeiture action appears to be a deliberate effort to undermine \t\tCalifornia's medical marijuana law, which federal officials have always \t\topposed. Too bad they are seeking to do so by victimizing sick people \t\trather than trying to invalidate the law by challenging it in court. \t\tNewly confirmed U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should call them \t\toff.
    \t\t
    \t\tAngel Raich v. Ashcroft News
    \t\t \t\thttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htm
    ​
    \t\t
    CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives
    \t\t \t\thttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
    ​
     

Share This Page