Via Windypundit, the Los Angeles Times reports that Charles Lynch was convicted of distributing more than 100 kilos of marijuana. He did so, and never claimed otherwise. Stop here, and it would appear that justice was done.
But Charles Lynch ran the Morro Bay medical marijuana dispensary, called Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers, in California. He sold marijuana to people with cancer, who had medical authorization to use marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering. He sold it to children with cancer.
Charles Lynch had the support of local elected officials. He violated no California law. But the United States of America has its own set of laws, and they have come to include purely local acts through application of the commerce clause stretched and contorted to cover every breath taken by every citizen no matter where it occurs. With the overwhelming support of the public, the federal government has achieved hegemony over criminal law.
For reasons that only a cynic could admire, marijuana has been classified as a drug lacking any legitimate medical benefit. It is, and will remain, a nefarious drug under federal law, and selling it to anyone, no less minors, is a crime. So the clash of cultures was clearly fixed. The good people of California decided that marijuana served a legitimate medical need for cancer patients, and the good people of the United States decided otherwise.
Cultivating, using and selling doctor-prescribed medical marijuana are allowed in some instances under California law. But they are outlawed entirely under federal law, which supersedes those of the states.
Lynch’s lawyers told jurors that their client had the blessing of elected officials in Morro Bay before opening his Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers, and they argued that he was he was told by a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration official that he would avoid prosecution as long as he obeyed local laws.But jurors rejected that argument.
Kitty Meese, the jury forewoman, said the panel concluded it would have made no sense for a DEA official to give such advice.
I have no doubt that Kitty Meese (relation to Ed?) reached her conclusion in good faith. No self-respecting DEA official (whatever that means) would admit in court that he told someone he would be left alone even though he would be committing a crime. That could cost him a pension, and no government employee would risk a pension. Not for anything.
But her assumption is flawed. The DEA turns a blind eye every day to crime for a variety of reasons, foremost of which is that they criminal provides them with some degree of information which entitles the criminal to commit crimes with impunity, and sometimes even with complicity, of the DEA. Crime may be shocking to the general public, but it’s routine to the DEA.
That a DEA official gave Charles Lynch “the wink” comes as no surprise. That the rest of the federal government decided to make Charles Lynch the whipping boy for his efforts comes as no surprise either. Somebody had to take the fall to make sure that the good people of California understood that the federal government was bigger and stronger than the land of Schwarzenegger, home of starlets and the liberal elite. The good people of Idaho do not agree with the good people of California, and they expect their federal government to put the left coasties in their place to save the Union from Godlessness.
Charles Lynch no doubt understood that he was taking a huge chance. He tried everything he could to avoid the risk, but couldn’t be terribly surprised when “the wink” didn’t protect him, and the DEA official denied the wink was ever given. Anyone who believes a government official’s wink is foolish.
Rarely do we have a decent test of federalism in this country anymore. People have come to view the federal government as the one that ultimately controls everything. History reminds us that it was supposed to be a government of limited power, with only that handful of authority that the states allowed it. The balance of authority resided with the states, where local government could decide for itself how to address issues within its jurisdiction.
This nuanced vision of how power is balanced between the states and the federal government is an historic relic. While some historians and lawprofs may recognize it, the People do not. The People makes demands on Congress to cure their ailments, and Congress is only too happy to respond. It gives them a way to return to their districts and prove what a great job they’re doing.
Hopefully, Lynch’s conviction will go before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where many very smart lawyers (and perhaps even some lawprofs) will assert that the federal government has no business interfering in affairs that only involve the State of California. Hopefully, they will argue forcefully that the rhetorical games that have stretched the commerce clause to reach Morro Bay have gone too far.
We live in a flat world. The country is flat as well, and the distinctions that our forefathers struggled with over the scope of federal authority have been wasted in a country where one government can approve of the use of medical marijuana while another government can imprison someone for relying on that approval.
It’s time for the People to be reminded that the federal government was never meant to be omnipotent. It’s time that the federal government got its hand smacked for reaching into California’s affairs. This could be the opportunity to teach America a history lesson. Americans are very bad at history and need constant reminders.
I hope Charles Lynch remains at liberty while this argument is being made, and I hope that those cancer patients don’t suffer too much while federal government officials flex their muscles to prove that they are in complete control.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In Emerson, the government argued that, since a shotgun sitting in a closet may at one time have been involved in interstate commerce, the Feds had the right to regulate it. Similarly, since marijuana grown in California might, at some point, be carried out of state and sold to a kindergartener on a playground in NYC (well, it could happen), the Feds have every right to regulate it . . .
It’s a silly argument, and it would be funny if a guy hadn’t just been sent to prison over this, and if cancer patients and others in need of medical marijuana weren’t aggrieved by this nonsense.
Silly, sure. But so is the whole War on Some Drugs. There may, arguably, be some benefits to it: perhaps a very few people who would otherwise use unlawful drugs substitute lawful drugs instead; arguably, it gives some LEO types who wouldn’t be any good at dealing with real crime — Lee Paige, say; the one who famously shot himself doing a Show and Tell in his kid’s school — a relatively safe-for-others playpen to play in while only harming a very few people.
But the costs are huge.
Thanks for 2 great examples. It’s the nexus of Chaos Theory and law, where everything ultimately has a potential relation to everything else, making ever act of every person everywhere subject to federal criminal law.
You may be right! The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could come up with another one of their way out liberal rulings. On the other hand, most law schools still teach that federal law does supersede state and local laws!!!
They probably do, and it only makes sense that Federal laws would supersede state and local laws . . . when the Federal laws are within the Federal government’s proper role. Local issues, like sound ordinances, state licensing (or not) for teachers, parking fines, or intrastate drug regulation? Not so much.
Which is, of course, just what authoritarians (of every political stripe; it’s worth remembering that it was the Feds under Clinton and Reno who burned the Branch Davidians’ kids alive “for the good of the children”) want.
State and Federal law enforcement agencies only enforce the laws that law makers have made regarding drugs and immigration. They are not the source of the headaches that citizens and attorneys are attempting to navigate. Blame your Congressmen and State Representatives for the laws on the books not the enforcers.
Why blame just one? At least at the federal level, law enforcement and prosecutors have a huge amount of discretion over which crimes to go after. Sure, it’s Congress’s fault that medical marijuana dispensaries are illegal, but someone in charge at the DEA had to decide that of all the drug crime in the U.S., they were going after a medical marijuana provider. I guess that’s a lot easier than investigating drug cartels.
You are totally correct about federal discretion. Actually, in this particular case, if the USAO did not authorize or initiate this enforcement action, there would have been no action on the part of DEA because they would not have been able to turn it over to a local or state agency. My guess is that one or both were making a statement to the citizens of SF and California.
EJB, a couple of pointers. First, if you click on the “reply” link rather than just start a new comment, people will know what you are replying to and the writer of the original post will know you have replied. Otherwise, many people will not know what you are talking about since it’s unlikely to be worth the effort to figure it out.
Second, I know how much former LEOs love using initials instead of words, but most other people don’t and many readers will have no clue what you are referring to. Since this isn’t a blawg for LEOs (law enforcement officers), let’s try using civilian language rather than LEO acronyms and abbreviations, so your brilliance is not lost and others won’t grow very sleepy.
As to the substance of your comment, clearly the decision to take down Charles Lynch was made at level far above a street cop or field agent. Non-cops lump groups together, such as DEA, without specifying that we’re talking about a field supervisor, or group leader or field agent or whatever. We aren’t all that concerned about which individual was involved, as their actions relate back to the agency. In other words, your focus on individual LEOs versus law enforcement as a whole is different from non-law enforcement officers. For non-law enforcement officers, this is taken for granted unless the actions of a particular individual are at issue.
Responding to a blog is something new to me so I will try follow your pointers in the future and appreciate the advise.
If you hadn’t championed Eric Byrant and come down on that Portland Police Officer, I would have never even found this blog site. You will have to take responsibility for me being here at all.
As far as my substance, I do not really understand what you are trying to communicate to me. I have felt compelled to defend the actions of law enforcement when I feel that they are unjustly attacked. You wanted to ‘slap the hand of federal government for interfering with the State of California’s laws’ which are clearly contrary to federal laws under United States Code (USC) Title 21. I merely pointed out that instead of coming down on those who enforced the law, get your Congressmen and Representatives to change the federal laws if a majority of society thinks the law should be changed. And things just rolled on from there. I have no idea where you got the field supervisor,group leader stuff from.
I was going to respond, but I’m just going to pull up a chair, pour myself a drink, put some popcorn in the microwave, and enjoy the show . . .
. . . after I second the notion that it was clearly apparatchiks in the DEA (probably the most useless government law enforcement agency after the BATFE) who made the shameful, disgraceful, and utterly predictable decision to go on a Lynching party as a priority.
And I appreciate your contributions here. While we may not see eye to eye on some things, you’ve brought an important perspective to the discussions here. I’m glad you found us and glad you’ve stuck around to give us your point of view.
On the substantive point, you may tend to read something into posts that isn’t there, or at least isn’t intended. The issue here wasn’t with the “enforcers”, though I have doubts about the DEA official who gave Lynch the wink that he wouldn’t be bothered. but with the decision-makers who decided to make Lynch the whipping boy. In other words, this was not an attack on the DEA agents who busted Lynch, but the federal/state politics in which he became embroiled.
I’m not so sure my opinions are really welcomed but thanks anyway.
I agree with you – this thread may have started out as federal/state politics and law but it did eventually turn to the enforcers. I may or may not have been the cause of the thread going in that direction but it seems to have turned that way from my prospective.
And a word to Joel Rosenberg, there are far worse Federal agencies or former Federal agencies out there than DEA or ATF but I can’t point fingers.
As long as you don’t mind that many will disagree with your views, you are always welcome here. It’s important that this place isn’t just the choir, and that there are people around to keep me honest.