Tuesday, March 23, 2004

Michele Leonhart confirmed to DEA despite disdain for truth Here's a little item I missed. Michele Leonhart was quietly confirmed as Deputy Administrator of the DEA earlier this month (see my article DEA Bad Girl Michele Leonhart for background on her.) There's a lot about her there, but here's the kicker. When talking about a snitch who put a lot of people behind bars but was discovered to be lying on a regular basis, she said: "The only criticism (of Chambers) I've ever heard is what defense attorneys will characterize as perjury or a lie on the stand." She continued by saying that once prosecutors check him out, they'll agree with his admirers in DEA that he's "an outstanding testifier." Yep, according to her, lying isn't such a bad thing as long as you get the conviction. Well, her views on the truth will fit in just fine with the drug warriors. After all, didn't the GAO already state that drug warriors practically had to lie in order to do their job? My prediction on Leonhart's confirmation was: The Senate Judiciary Committee must, at the very least, investigate Leonhart's connection to Andrew Chambers. The fact that she apparently has no objection to the use of perjury in attaining a conviction should be an automatic disqualifier. Based on past experience, however, it is likely that Leonhart will be confirmed without discussion or recorded vote. Well, I called that right. The Judiciary Committee passed her on without comment on March 4, and the Senate confirmed on voice vote with a whole list of other nominees. 11:06:32 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Small but important step in medical marijuana history TalkLeft has the info on a federal judge in California who has allowed defendants to raise medical marijuana use as a defense to cultivation charges. Here's some background if you haven't been following: When Congress restricted marijuana through the Controlled Substances Act, they placed it in Schedule 1, which is defined in part as having no accepted medical use. This is just a definition by Congress and has no actual reality, but it has had legal authority. Because of this little fact, judges in federal courts have consistently not permitted defendants to even mention 1) their medical condition, 2) why they had the marijuana, or 3) the fact that medical marijuana is legal in their state. With these, their only arguments, denied to them, many had no choice but to plead guilty. This resulted in numerous miscarriages of justice, including the death of Peter McWilliams, the flight of others to Canada for asylum, and an angry jury (in the case of Ed Rosenthal) In December, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals made a major controversial ruling to prevent the Federal government from interfering with non-commercial medical marijuana activities in states where medical marijuana is legal. Now a federal judge is using that ruling to allow defendants to attempt to use medical marijuana as a defense in a federal trafficking charge. Progress. For real progress, encourage Congress to pass the Truth in Trials act. Send a letter easily here. 9:29:56 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []