Annual Fundraising Appeal

Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from Chris Hedges….

Hedges2

Chris Hedges calls CounterPunch “the most fearless, intellectually rigorous and important publication in the United States.” Who are we to argue? But the only way we can continue to “dissect the evils of empire” and the “psychosis of permanent war” is with your financial support. Please donate.

Day5

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

paypal-donate-21

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Mr. Walsh vs. the Dispensaries

Colorado’s War on Medical Marijuana

by CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI

[A] drug which takes away grief and passion and brings a forgetfulness of all ills.

– Homer, The Iliad

Two events took place in June that suggested a primer on how medical marijuana laws are working in Colorado might be appropriate.  The first was an appellate court decision that the state Supreme Court declined to review. The holding was that if an employer has a zero-tolerance drug policy and an employee who uses medical marijuana tests positive and is discharged, the employee is not entitled to unemployment benefits even though the use of medical marijuana is not proscribed by state law.

The second event of note was a newspaper announcement that the Sunday night CBS news program “60 Minutes” had interviewed Stan Garnett, Boulder, Colorado’s District Attorney, with respect to medical marijuana dispensaries operating in Colorado.  Since the interview will not be broadcast until fall, an update might help those who wonder what is happening in the world of  medical marijuana in Colorado.  Although only applicable to Colorado, readers elsewhere can see how the Obama administration has lived up to promises made during the 2008 campaign.

During the 2008 campaign Mr. Obama said, with respect to medical marijuana laws, that if elected:  “What I’m not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue simply because I want folks to be investigating violent crimes and potential terrorism.”  In February 2009 Attorney General Eric Holder said what the president said during the campaign “is now American policy” and in a subsequent press conference said the policy is to “go after those people who violate both federal and state law. . . .”  The administration did not rely on those statements to let people know what official policy was. David Ogden, then the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, put it in writing so everyone would understand.

October 19, 2009,  Mr. Ogden, sent a memorandum to the U.S. attorneys in states that authorized the sale and use of medical marijuana.  Its stated purpose was to provide “clarification and guidance to federal prosecutors.”  Mr. Ogden began by saying:  “Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime. . . .” However, he went on to say that “selected U.S. attorneys” to whom he sent his memorandum should “not focus federal resources in your states on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.”  Mr. Ogden and Colorado’s U.S. Attorney, John Walsh, would have been well served had Mr. Ogden stopped there since it was clear what he meant.  He didn’t.   After explaining  the meaning of  “clear and unambiguous” as used in his memorandum  he went on to say that “no State can authorize violations of federal law” which is, of course, exactly what medical marijuana legislation does.  If a U.S. attorney decides to prosecute someone, Mr. Ogden continued,  it is not necessary to prove that a state law was violated. The memorandum, he said, does not “’legalize’ marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law. . . . Nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law . . .   provide a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act.”  He repeats that in the penultimate paragraph of his memorandum saying the memorandum is not intended to preclude investigation  “in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests.”  The foregoing, as all but the dullest reader can immediately see, is a crystal clear roadmap for U.S. Attorneys who wonder whom to prosecute.  And that brings the curious to Colorado and to the even curiouser John Walsh.

Colorado citizens amended their state constitution in 2000 to permit the medical use of marijuana effective June 1, 2001.  In 2010 a law was enacted that regulates medical marijuana dispensaries.  John Walsh, apparently confused by the Ogden memo, has concluded that he can prosecute those who are in “clear and unambiguous compliance” with Colorado law as stated in the Ogden memorandum. In January, March and May, he sent waves of letters to dispensaries within 1000 feet of  schools telling them they must close and describing in great detail the draconian penalties that may be imposed if they do not.  Mr. Walsh was not concerned about whether local governments were content to have dispensaries closer than 1000 feet to schools as Colorado law permits .

Mr. Garnett wrote Mr. Walsh in March expressing his opinion that the U.S. Attorney’s office could, instead of going after dispensaries,  better use its efforts dealing with “terrorism, serious economic crime,  organized crime and serious drug dealing. . . .” In response, Mr. Walsh said in effect, that his views about how far dispensaries should be from schools overrode local governments’ views. He did not say how his actions comported with Mr. Ogden’s memorandum.

What the Colorado court ruled does not run afoul of what Mr. Obama promised during the 2008 campaign.  What Mr. Walsh has done, does. That is more than a pity.  It is a travesty.

Last week I said that Pope Benedict had made Cardinal Bernard Law the Archpriest of St. Mary Major Basilica in RomeThe appointment was made by Pope John Paul II.

Christopher Brauchli can be emailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu. For political commentary see his web page at http://humanraceandothersports.com