Feds Bust Medical Pot Patients In Courtroom
By Ann Harrison, AlterNet
January 17, 2004
California medical marijuana activists are outraged over the arrest last week of two medical marijuana patients who face potential life sentences on federal drug charges after being turned over by local authorities. David Davidson, of Oakland, California and his partner Cynthia Blake, of Red Bluff, California were arrested in a state courtroom in Corning, California on January 13 as they were seeking to dismiss state charges of marijuana cultivation and distribution.
Davidson and Blake, both 53, have doctor's recommendations to grow and consume medical marijuana under California's 1996 Compassionate Use Act (Prop. 215). While their defense attorneys were meeting in the judge's chambers to discuss the case with Tehama County assistant district attorney Lynn Strom, Strom announced that she was dropping the state charges because Davidson and Blake were being arrested in the courtroom on a federal indictment.
One of the major flaws of California's medical marijuana law is that it does not specify how many plants a patient can grow or how much marijuana they can possess. Each county or city sets its own guidelines and law enforcement around the state has widely ranging interpretations of how much marijuana patients should have.
The Sacramento U.S. Attorneys office did not return calls seeking comment on the case. But Tehama County assistant district attorney Jonathan Skillman argues that Davidson and Blake were growing too much medical marijuana for their personal use. Skillman said prosecutors came to this conclusion after a raid on Davidson and Blake's homes allegedly netted 1,803 plants and over 60 pounds of "processed marijuana."
"He had plans to supply the entire West Coast," Stillman claimed. "It is not in the realm of peronal use."
But Davidson says prosecutors inflated the number of plants seized, which he says is reflected in the charges. He and Blake have been charged with manufacturing more than 100 marijuana plants and conspiracy to cultivate more than 1,000 marijuana plants. The first charge carries a five- to 40-year prison sentence. The second is punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years and a maximum of life in prison.
Davidson said Cynthia Blake was growing 33 plants when the Tehama County sheriff's deputies raided her home in July. Skillman acknowledges that the county has no official plant limit for medical marijuana patients. But prosecutors used this information to secure a warrant to raid Davidson's house in Oakland, where he said he grew about 400 plants, mostly single leaf cuttings. Oakland patients are permitted by local ordinance to grow 72 mature plants and 32 square feet of marijuana garden canopy.
In last year's highly publicized federal case of Oakland medical marijuana grower Ed Rosenthal, jurors declined to include cuttings in the count of mature plants. As with that case, Davidson and Blake will likely be barred from arguing that their marijuana was for medical purposes since federal law does not recognized Prop. 215.
Life in prison for growing marijuana. Our priorities are so screwed up it isn't even funny.
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at January 22, 2004 02:12 PMOur pot policy has to be the most self-destructive thing that we do. If we released the non-violent pot offenders, we would reduce our prison population by 75%. The really horrible thing is that they aren't criminals (as we think of the term) when they go into prison, but they are when they come out.
Posted by Phelps at January 22, 2004 02:26 PMThis is scary. When you consider what some zealot prosecutors can do even under ordinary laws, what do you imagine they're doing under cover of the Patriot Act? Here in Portland, a man was held and interrogated for several hours recently by FBI agents for the crime of taking pictures of the outside of a federal building downtown merely for its architectural interest. They told him it was against the law to photograph federally owned property!
Posted by don at January 23, 2004 12:00 AMillegal to photograph federally owned property? does that mean it's illegal to own photos of federally owned property, too?
if so, think of all the tourists in all the various cities of the USA who are in possession of postcards of historical landmarks, outstanding architectural designs that abound in most state and federal buildings, as well as national parks and federally protected wildlife, both animal and plant! plus, they have the intent of sending those illegal photographs through the US Mail, which, if memory serves, would be another felony added to the list.
i wonder if the photographers who make their livings taking photos that end up on postcards are being harassed in such a fashion.
"we're on a road to nowhere..."
Posted by DesertJo at January 23, 2004 01:02 PM