In the beginning (of the 2011 legislative session), prohibitionist rhetoric concerning medical marijuana was alarming, even hysterical, completely over the top. A few examples:

Senator Essman, speaking in support of the repeal bill: “The greater good here is not losing a generation of young people, and that is why I am voting yes on this repeal bill.”

Representative Milburn, speaking in support of repeal: “This is rampant, it’s permeating through our society, it’s into our schools and families, it’s individual degradation, it’s causing huge problems…the tragic events taking place in Montana, changing society, changing culture.”

And of course, the instant classic from Representative Howard: “It’s poison, a kind of poison. It’s kind of like taking arsenic with Valium®, you’re going to feel good until it kills you…. it is affecting our schools and work, every facet of our life in Montana, and it is slowly but surely dragging us down. It is a drug induced society…. it’s a scourge.”

As a parenthetical aside, what exactly is a scourge?

scourge  (skûrj)

n.

1. A source of widespread dreadful affliction and devastation such as that caused by pestilence or war.

2. A means of inflicting severe suffering, vengeance, or punishment.

Recently, the rhetoric of our opposition has shifted away from the scourge, to focus on the state/federal conflict in marijuana law.

Senator Shockley claimed last week: “The Legislature realized the tough situation that federal law enforcement was put in by the current law, and the risk to Montana citizens who wished to benefit from medical marijuana, either as a grower or a medical user. The Legislature was attempting to limit production in a way that would not attract federal attention.”

Essman, too: “The Legislature was grappling with trying to conform the law to a series of letters from U.S. attorneys that indicated a commercial business model would still be prosecuted…So that’s why we voted for that approach.”

With a slippery sidestep, now they’re saying they were just trying to protect us from federal law enforcement. Their absurd hyperbole didn’t work, so they’ve shifted gears to try and get us to believe that they were trying to protect…. brace yourself… people who grow marijuana. Does anyone else find that hard to believe?
Most Montanans recognized the earlier prohibitionist statements as ridiculous lies.

Most Montanans acknowledge that marijuana has been around a long time, lots of people have tried it, some people like it, and some people derive real therapeutic benefits from it.

We don’t have to lie. We have truth, liberty, and justice on our side, so we can simply continue telling the truth.

Dear President Obama,

You have better things to do.

Here we go again. Montana marijuana farmers facing 40 years in federal prison. Here’s some more. And there are more, all over.

The famed “Holder memo“, expertly crafted to  raise hopes and then destroy lives, has now been clarified, to ensure everyone understands that the United States federal government will attack anyone who tries to run a responsible and ethical business that involves farming and selling cannabis. They say it’s a bad use of “resources” to go after patients dying of cancer and AIDS (who could disagree?), but anyone who grows and sells risks the full and violent force of the DEA, IRS, FBI, etc.

Meanwhile, 58% of voters in the West believe marijuana should be legal for grown-ups, Montanans consume 30,000 pounds a year, and are generally eager to be taxed for the privilege of “getting legal” and diverting their financial support of the criminal black market to legitimate local businesses.

If I was king for a day? First, I’d direct the feds (with their 104,000 cops in 80 agencies) to focus our tax dollars on some other categories of crime:

• Prevent extremists of any flavor from blowing up innocent people on American soil.
• Chase down domestic murderers and rapists.
• Nail some fraudsters, cheats, thieves, and scammers.
• Monitor registered sex offenders.
• Hold companies responsible for poisoning our environment accountable for their actions.
• Prosecute hate crimes.
• Imprison the leaders of corporate juggernauts who pillage the public good, for their personal profit.
• Go after rich people who break the law to avoid paying taxes.

That’s a short list I came up with in 15 minutes. There are proper, useful, just roles for federal law enforcement. I want my tax dollars to fight these crimes.

Arresting and incarcerating cannabis farmers providing an agricultural commodity to responsible adults doesn’t make the list. So, stop, please.

Agree? The audience for our objections includes several elected officials. Please give them a (polite) piece of your mind, and ask them to stand up for Montanans who have participated responsibly in the Montana medical marijuana marketplace. Ask Denny Rehberg (our federal Representative, call (202) 225-3211 right now) to support  HR 2306, which would end federal marijuana prohibition.

Ask Baucus and Tester (call both right now), our Montana Senators, to pressure the Department of Justice and the Obama administration to leave Montana alone when it comes to marijuana. We’re Montanans, we’ll figure it out, please give us the freedom to do so without your federal guns blazing.

And tell the Obama administration: After your statements during the campaign, Montanans are deeply disappointed in your hypocrisy. Stop it.

The federal/state conflict question is an important one, and now that our neighbors continue to be rounded up and threatened with being carted off to federal prison, now’s the time for you to speak up. Please take action, now.

In March 2011, the United States federal government launched raids on numerous medical marijuana providers throughout Montana. We liveblogged the events as they transpired.

Later, the U.S. Attorney released a statement about the raids, praising the 20+ state and local agencies that helped out.

When I saw that long list of participating agencies who aided federal authorities in the enforcement in federal law, I got curious about what exactly their roles were, what they knew, when they knew it, and whether they’d get a share of the seized and forfeited assets. Read more about asset forfeiture here.

Happily, because Montana has right to know guaranteed in our constitution, and we have strong open records laws in 44-5-301 and 2-6-102 (and the sections that follow them), it’s a simple matter to write and ask to see what they’ve got. They can deny me some information, like if the information would jeopardize an ongoing investigation, or violate a person’s privacy. But pretty much everything else is fair game, and they’re legally required to answer.

So today, I wrote letters to most of the participating agencies, and a few other state government entities who were probably “in the loop”, and asked the following questions:

1. Please provide a narrative of how and when you became aware of the federal government’s investigations into medical marijuana in Montana. Please include specific dates and names of all federal agencies with whom your agency communicated about the investigations.
2. Was your agency requested to help in the investigations in any way? If so, how, and by whom?
3. Was your agency’s help requested in determining whether the activities under investigation were illegal under state law? If so, how, and by whom?
4. Is there a written or understood policy that your agency follows with regards to determining whether a federal warrant is lawful under Montana law?
5. Please describe your agency’s constitutional obligation to ensure that the federal warrants were lawful under state law and executed lawfully.
6. Please provide a narrative of how and when you became aware of the federal government’s intentions to execute warrants and raid medical marijuana businesses in Montana.  Please include specific dates and names of all federal agencies with whom your agency communicated about the raids.
7. Please provide copies of any and all contracts, agreements, memoranda, letters, and emails relevant to your agency’s involvement in these federal raids.
8. How many total staff hours were required to coordinate and execute your agency’s assistance to federal authorities on these raids? Please provide best estimates if staff time was not tracked.
9. How many of those hours were overtime?
10. What is the average wage of individuals employed or contracted by your agency who helped to coordinate, assist, or participate in the federal raids?
11. Please describe in detail and provide copies of supporting documentation (contracts, memoranda, emails, etc), if any, of assurances, expressed or implied, that you received related to your agency being a recipient of a portion of assets subject to forfeiture in the federal raids.
12. What specific roles was your agency assigned or expected to perform in the investigation of these cases, and execution of these warrants?
13. Did your agency receive federal raid-related information from, or provide such information to, the Montana All Threat Information Center? If so, what was the nature of the information transmitted?
14. In State v. Nelson, the Montana Supreme Court noted that under certain circumstances, state entities may not use violations of federal law as a justification for establishing state penalties. Upon which law or rule did your agency rely in considering participation in these federal raids?
15. Did your agency suspect violations of state law with regards to the targets of the federal raids? If so, why did your agency not act on its own, or in coordination with other state entities?

I’ve requested the information by April 16th, and will publish our findings in future posts.