IGX

Despite the passage of ballot initiatives in Washington and Colorado legalizing recreational marijuana, "the Drug Enforcement Administration’s enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged," a DEA spokesperson told Reason this morning.

"In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, Congress determined that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance. The Department of Justice is reviewing the ballot initiatives and we have no additional comment at this time."

Bensinger added: "And there is a bigger danger that touches every one of us -- legalizing marijuana threatens public health and safety. In states that have legalized medical marijuana, drug driving arrests, accidents, and drug overdose deaths have skyrocketed. Drug treatment admissions are up and the number of teens using this gateway drug is up dramatically

Batboy2/75 wrote:I want the hippie dippie idiot supporters to have to wrestle with the concepts of States Rights and individual rights.

BucketHead wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:I want the hippie dippie idiot supporters to have to wrestle with the concepts of States Rights and individual rights.

In what reasonable world would you consider 54.5% of the state of Colorado to be "hippie dippie"?

Blaidd Drwg wrote:I think on the ground, even the medical MJ has changed quite a bit on the field of play as far as public consciousness goes.

I had a hard time with our one because it raises a number of individual right issues vis a vis the DUI standard. Ultimately asserting our state's right to tell the WOD warriors to fuck off is positive, even if my particular chemical of choice wasn't in the mix.

It will be an interesting next couple months.

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:I think on the ground, even the medical MJ has changed quite a bit on the field of play as far as public consciousness goes.

I had a hard time with our one because it raises a number of individual right issues vis a vis the DUI standard. Ultimately asserting our state's right to tell the WOD warriors to fuck off is positive, even if my particular chemical of choice wasn't in the mix.

It will be an interesting next couple months.

They'd legalize it and tax it if they were serious about the debt.

BucketHead wrote:So Batboy's argument is the states are stupid for pressing for more state authority even though the state's should have that authority

BucketHead wrote:So Batboy's argument is the states are stupid for pressing for more state authority even though the state's should have that authority

BucketHead wrote:Ok bats, I do see your point. However, maybe it's not how it's "supposed" to work, but I don't have a problem with states exerting as much pressure as they can on the Fed. If a federal judge strikes this down in 30 minutes then so be it. I see it as mass civil disobedience

Nineteen eighty-four was the year that Congress rewrote the civil forfeiture law to funnel drug money and "drug related" assets into the police agencies that seize them. This amendment offered law enforcement a new source of income, limited only by the energy police and prosecutors were willing to put into seizing assets. The number of forfeitures mushroomed: Between 1985 and 1991 the Justice Department collected more than $1.5 billion in illegal assets; in the next five years, it almost doubled this intake. By 1987 the Drug Enforcement Administration was more than earning its keep, with over $500 million worth of seizures exceeding its budget.

Local law enforcement benefited from a separate "equitable sharing" provision, which allows local police to federalize a forfeiture. This law gives police a way to circumvent their own state forfeiture laws, which often require police to share forfeited assets with school boards, libraries, drug education programs or the general fund. Instead, local police can conspire with the U.S. Justice Department to evade these requirements through paperwork: If a U.S. Attorney "adopts" the forfeiture, 80 percent of the assets are returned to the local police agency and 20 percent are deposited in the Justice Department's forfeiture fund. As of 1994 the Justice Department had transferred almost $1.4 billion in forfeited assets to state and local law-enforcement agencies. Some small-town police forces have enhanced their annual budgets by a factor of five or more through such drug-enforcement activities.

These financial benefits are essentially there for the taking, thanks to expansive laws from Congress and a green light from the Supreme Court. Since the forfeiture law extends to any property that "facilitated" a drug crime, it covers a potentially enormous class. Cars, bars, homes and restaurants have all been forfeited on grounds that they served as sites for drug deals, marijuana cultivation or other drug crimes. Are the bills in your wallet forfeitable? Probably, because an estimated 80 percent of U.S. paper currency has been contaminated by cocaine residue, which has been held sufficient by some courts to warrant forfeiture. Meanwhile, according to the Supreme Court, few constitutional safeguards apply to forfeiture cases, in which the seized property is deemed the defendant (as in United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan) and the defendant is presumed guilty. Owners who want to contest seizures must put up a bond, hire a lawyer and rebut the presumption of guilt with proof that the property is untainted by criminal activity. There is no constitutional requirement that the owner knew of any illegal activities, and forfeiture may occur even if the owner is charged and acquitted. In other words, if you are either related to a drug dealer or mistaken for one, you may find yourself legally dispossessed of your property without effective recourse.