We really made an impact here. I don’t know if he’s saying it because he thinks it’ll get the protesters off his back, or because he really does see the value of it, but it’s good either way.
Via Morgan Fox at MPP:
During a press conference yesterday, Columbia Police Chief Ken Burton went out of his way to state his support for ending marijuana prohibition.
“I applaud your efforts,†he told a reporter who asked about campaigns to change marijuana laws. “If we could get out of the business [of going after marijuana offenders], I think there would be a lot of police officers that would be happy to do that.†[…]
Chief Burton also acknowledged that violence surrounding marijuana is often associated with the illegal market created by prohibition, and not the drug itself. “Crimes do occur because of marijuana,†he said. “And you may make the argument that it’s because it’s not legal, and you may be right.â€
Of course, he’s not going to stop enforcing the law, but he’s indicated that he’s behind efforts to change the law.
Unfortunately, I think it’s going to take many more atrocious tragedies before enough people get on board with this.
I think there’s too much “well, that certainly won’t ever happen to me” mentality for (influential) people to truly rally behind this sentiment.
20,000 dead dogs later (and who knows how many humans), and I expect some real change.
You know if thats what the cheif realy said that, he just gained +1 respect with my faction.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Columbia, Missouri Police Chief endorses marijuana legalization - Drug WarRant -- Topsy.com
Has he joined LEAP yet?
We need a body language expert here to start analyzing their facial and body gyrations. There’s a great deal of insight that can be garnered from understanding “body language.”
Words are empty coming from him.
We shouldn’t be waiting for cops to join LEAP. No, thousands of us should be asking them question on camera along the lines of:
“Would you rather deal with a crowd of drunks or a crowd of stoners?”
“Do you think marijuana makes users violent? What about alcohol?”
“Do you think arresting marijuana users makes the public safer?”
And just plain:
“Do you support treating marijuana like we do alcohol?”
Post them all to youtube.
OMG He really said that!! I was born and ggrew up in Missouri and never realized there could be an enlightened poliice chief in that state. Please support this man and let the other government officials know what he has said. Thank you Chief Burton for your courage.
Really happy to see something like this coming from a current police chief. Now if only lawmakers can take the extra steps necessary to change the laws, maybe we can see police returned to a respectable position in each community…
There are so many people, both enforcement and civilian, who are tired of the effort, the money spent and the hypocrisy of 40 years of drug wars. The police in this country, who used to be portrayed as benevolent, friendly and trustworthy, have been turned into jackbooted narc squads that we have given our blessing to bust into our homes using tatics as evil and dangerous as the drug cartels themselves! All in the name of protecting us from this evil, botanical herb. An herb that is safer than alcohol. As reason and truth work there way into the national dicussion we will see and hear more people like Mr.Burton admit that the time has come to rethink our attitude towards cannabis. I think, if you listen closely, you can hear the sound of a steamroller coming down the road, politicians beware! The day has come where those who run for political office must carefully consider where they stand on legal cannabis or they may find themselves a few votes short come election day.
’bout damn time…
forgot to add this:
Thud!
New York City’s ‘Marijuana Arrest Crusade’
http://tinyurl.com/38xtmhp
The article is not new, but interesting.
i live in columbia, and i literally jumped out of my chair when i saw this. thank god the cpd are good for something. legalization is just around the corner folks. get ready!!
I to was born and raised in Mo.Born in Harrisonville Mo and grew up in Revere Mo.Moved to calif in 1954 where I was first introduced to cannabis. Moved to oregon in 1972 and have been here since. The OMMA is the best thing to ever happen to me as an individual in my life time. Thank you cheif for your support. I still have many relatives in Mo.and a couple have cancer and cannabis does make their lives more liveable.
As Always
Robert[brotherbob]Walker
How is it that these law and order types all cannot see that cannabis in fact DOES have safe medical uses in the United States and may not lawfully be included in Schedule I?
They all say the law is the law, but that law is based* on a lie. What precedent or law permits the arrest of millions on the basis of a false claim?
* http://supersoberme.com/
Love the headline you gave this one Pete. That should get people talking and keep the pressure on Columbia, Missouri – however – Kerli-boy and former czar William Bennett were on the situation room with blitzer today. Kerli said, “No, legalization is an absolute non-starter in the Obama administration.”
@allan420: Thud!
That sounded just like a brick hitting the ground…
Finally! A cop that I can like!
is this the same guy who said “i hate the internet”?
Caught yet another Kerlikowske interview today again on CNN but this time with Bill Bennett sitting next to him answering questions from Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer did a very decent job with the questioning but it was major drug warrior overload and of course no counter-balancing opinion from a single drug-reform supporter. Just another example of the lack of balance afforded to our issue by the mainstream media….
don’t change a thing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbwSwvUaRqc
I’d take him at his word. That swat team raid was just business as usual until it blew up in their faces. He has probably always thought MJ was no big thing, really, and if it is going to give him this much trouble, then by all means just legalize the stuff and have done with it.
Colombia was clearly badly shocked by the internet reaction. they’ve been shamed, accepted it, and are moving to reform. I only wish more local government would reform before they are shamed.
Congress, on the other hand, has no sense of shame, so this will never work on them.
I agree, Paul. I’ve never seen this degree of willingness to change policy, etc. This may have been a genuine wake-up call, and yes, I’d sure like to see it a lot of other places.
Exolent!
Looking forward to the LEAP response.
When this war is over, something really needs to be done about all the cops who trotted out the “we’re just doing our job” line whilst continuing to arrest people for no good reason.
Actually, strayan, I’m not so concerned about cops who have been arresting people for what’s against the law. It’s the cops who say “we’re just doing our job” and then lobby to keep prohibition going that are scum. And I’d rather take on the legislators who passed the laws than those who enforced them.
A cop who doesn’t enforce the law gets fired (although there is also the way they enforce it that can make a difference).
I can only hope this mistakenly happens to a U.S. Congressman/Senator with a fraudulent package like with the Berwyn Heights, Maryland Mayor. What a gift that would be to the drug policy reform agenda. Here’s keeping my fingers crossed that a powerful U.S. congressman/congresswoman has this happen to them…
Shap, I think Calvo has a chance at being a poster child for the cause. If he could be terrerized than anybody could. If only there was video of that raid. It should be mandatory every officer in a any situation has a head cam recording.
Now that the Chief has “talked the talk” lets wait and see if he can “walk the walk”.So many times people that will run for an office or are in the public eye will say what is suppose to be said or never follow through with what was said.
He may say he supports reform, but his department is still practicing cya:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/may/20/police-conclude-swat-investigation/
Insanity , some just seem to love the Idea of following insanity to the end.
Ya know, I think this guy is my new hero!
re: “I’m not so concerned about cops who have been arresting people for what’s against the law.”
Seriously, what lawful precedent or case law allows the use of a false claim to
arrest marijuana users?
No one disputes that millions have been arrested on the grounds that
cannabis lacks “a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the
United States, and a lack of
accepted safety for use under medical supervision.”
Dozens of references proving cannabinoids’ safe medical use were used by the United States Department of
Health and Human Services to apply for 2003 US Patent No. 6630507,
“Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants”, linked here:
http://tinyurl.com/classactionlawsuit
Here is evidence from March of 2001 that then DEA Administrator
Donnie R. Marshall used a false claim in order to issue this Notice of
Denial of Petition to reschedule cannabis. Note that 2003 US Patent
No. 6630507, “Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants” was
applied for in April 1999:
“Thus, when it comes to a drug that is currently listed in
schedule I, if it is undisputed that such drug has no currently
accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and a lack of
accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and it is further
undisputed that the drug has at least some potential for abuse
sufficient to warrant control under the CSA, the drug must remain in
schedule I. In such circumstances, placement of the drug in
schedules II through V would conflict with the CSA since such drug
would not meet the criterion of “a currently accepted medical use
in treatment in the United States.” 21 USC 812(b).
Therefore, even if one were to assume, theoretically, that your
assertions about marijuana’s potential for abuse were correct (i.e.,
that marijuana had some potential for abuse but less than the “high
potential for abuse” commensurate with schedules I and II),
marijuana would not meet the criteria for placement in schedules III
through V since it has no currently accepted medical use in
treatment in the United States–a determination that is reaffirmed
by HHS in the attached medical and scientific evaluation.”
source: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_register&docid=01-9306-filed
Jose Melendez:
By law, the only way to reschedule Cannabis is through legislation or through a weird executive process of administrative rescheduling, which includes a judicial review by the U.S. Court of Appeals.
There have been three attempts in 1972, 1995, and 2002. First two failed for political reasons. Current one is in review by HHS. This is an incredibly political process, so the third one likely to go nowhere. The Supreme Court is clearly opposed to rescheduling. The legislature is clearly opposed to rescheduling. I have no hope.
See:
http://www.drugscience.org/about_coalition.html
http://sunsmudge.tumblr.com/post/568155628/coalition-for-rescheduling-cannabis-wikipedia
OK, but the question remains: “What lawful precedent or case law allows the use of a false claim to
arrest marijuana users?”
Anyone?
Jose, they didn’t need the Controlled Substances Act to arrest people for marijuana — they were doing it long before.
And the fact is that people are not being arrested on the grounds that cannabis lacks “a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.â€
People are arrested because duly elected legislators have voted to make possession of marijuana a criminal offense, in the same way that they voted to make possession of child pornography or pirated DVDs a criminal offense.
And then duly appointed Justices of the Supreme Court have provided their interpretation of the Constitution, verifying that these laws are valid.
See, your question is problematic in that there is, unfortunately, nothing that prevents a false claim from being used as the basis for a law. It happens all the time. What is required is for the people to realize that and act through their legislators to change the bad law.
Or, you could just decide that, in your own mind, the law has no validity and refuse to follow it. That’ll most likely end up with you arrested and/or broke with no change in the law.
You all keep giving legal arguements as to a way to get Cannabis legalized. Its not about that , its about government control and money. They can interpert the laws anyway they want to keep the money flowing and the control under boot…and they will do it….have been doing it…will keep doing it. The only way Ive seen good progress is at the local level. If you want your government back , you gotta take it back locally first. Denver ring a bell? Cali? November isnt that far off.
“there is, unfortunately, nothing that prevents a false claim from being used as the basis for a law”
The False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729–3733) provides an avenue for individuals not affiliated with the federal government to file suit against contractors that defraud the gevernment by accepting or disbursing federal funds on the basis of a false claim.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/usc_sec_31_00003729—-000-.html
see also: Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, No. 981828 (May 22, 2000):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1828.ZO.html
Also, US Code, Title 21 and many state laws refer to “Substances included in schedule I”, see:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/LCsearch.html?entry=%22in+schedule+I%22&restrict=codes%3Auscode&button=Search+Again
What I’m asking is: What US law or precedent allows cannabis’ inclusion with schedule I drugs, considering the indisputable facts of it’s safe, accepted medical use in the United States?
I’d love to act through my legislators to change the bad law. They tell me they are powerless to change it or firmly agree with cannabis’ scheduling despite the facts.
Suggesting one may determine the law has no validity and refuse to follow it is the status quo for any marijuana user.
But surely these are not the only choices? How much can one amicus curiae filing cost to find out?
The Controlled Substances Act and all of its amendments. Challenges to these schedules have only one legally sanctioned avenue for petition, which is the administrative rescheduling process. Part of this process is a review of the scientific evidence. This process is not solely based on scientific merit, so politics ends up trumping the petitions for rescheduling despite scientific merit.
The Supreme Court also has not and likely will not hear cases based on scientific validity or even on the basis of public safety. The only cases they tend to accept are constitutional challenges, in which cases they have twisted the constitution to facilitate the legislative agenda. The legislative agenda being clearly opposed to any sort of legalization or rescheduling of Cannabis.
The False Claims Act does not apply to precedent set by legislation. The legislation itself declares Marijuana to be dangerous with no accepted medical value.
You’re over-estimating the role science plays in legal argument. Scientific validity may have no bearing on legal validity, but only in cases in which the law stipulates as such.
To simplify:
The law states Marijuana has no accepted medical value. Therefor, you cannot challenge this based on scientific research, because that is outside the scope of the law. The law already establishes that it has no accept medical value. Not science.
It would be different if the law states Marijuana should be regulated based on scientific research. Then there would be a legal challenge using science. The current law is similar to this, in that it allows the DEA to decide what has scientific merit. There is a petition process which includes scientific review, but the principal problem with this is that the final decision can override the scientific review.
Drug law is incredibly solidified. All three branches support it. There is very, very little legal ground for opposition to stand on.
A few of us from Omaha went to a Drug Policy Conference there in 2009, put on by Students for Sensible Drug Policies – thanks, SSDP – that was a fine time! Looks like that event had a great impact.
A Big THANK YOU to Chief Burton for his beautiful bravery and love for truth and peacefulness!! Here’s hoping that his great attitude catches on because good cops are ANGELS!!!
“The law states Marijuana has no accepted medical value. Therefor, you cannot challenge this based on scientific research, because that is outside the scope of the law. The law already establishes that it has no accept medical value. Not science.”
If so, which precedent or law allows that law to be based on a false claim?
“The False Claims Act does not apply to precedent set by legislation.”
Citations?
Plain reading of the act itself. Try reading it yourself. It doesn’t limit government — it allows actions against federal contractors who defraud the government. It has no bearing on the government lying to the people. You can’t use the False Claims Act against the government. Or for that matter against members of Congress, the Judiciary or executive members of the Administration.
Instead of this bizarre multiple posting requiring us to come up with citations that don’t allow a clearly inapplicable law from being applied the way you want it, why don’t you come up with some citations of any procedure in the United States Constitution for negating a law because it was based on false information.
plain reading:
Any person who—
(1) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United States Government or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval;
(2) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government;
(3) conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid;
(4) has possession, custody, or control of property or money used, or to be used, by the Government and, intending to defraud the Government or willfully to conceal the property, delivers, or causes to be delivered, less property than the amount for which the person receives a certificate or receipt;
(5) authorized to make or deliver a document certifying receipt of property used, or to be used, by the Government and, intending to defraud the Government, makes or delivers the receipt without completely knowing that the information on the receipt is true;
(6) knowingly buys, or receives as a pledge of an obligation or debt, public property from an officer or employee of the Government, or a member of the Armed Forces, who lawfully may not sell or pledge the property; or
(7) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government,
is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of the act of that person,
“a private lawsuit under the Act is blocked only if the prior public disclosure came in a “federal†proceeding in which the federal government is a party, or in a report, audit or investigation that was itself “federal.†By omission, then, the new law seems to clear the way for whistle-blower lawsuits under the Act based on public disclosures in state and local government probes or reports.”
source: http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Graham_County_Soil_%26_Water_Conservation_Dist._v._U.S._ex_rel._Wilson
also, from: http://www.benabraham.com/html/untouchable_us_constitution_-_.html
Marbury v Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176; 2 LE
60 (1803) reveals that “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 491; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed
2d 694 (1966) reveals that “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.”
Norton v Shelby County, Tennessee, 118 US 425, 442; 6 S Ct 1121; 30 L Ed 178 (1886) reveals that “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; creates no office. It is as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Bonnett v Vallier, 136 Wis 193, 200; 116 NW 885, 887 (1908); and Ballard v Goodland, 159 Wis 393, 395; 150 NW 488, 489 (1915); reveal that unconstitutional enactments [laws] are treated as though they had never existed.
City of Oak Ridge v Diana Ruth Brown
(Tenn. Ct. App., Case No. E2004-01574-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 1996620, 19 August 2005 lv app den 2006) reveals that a law is unconstitutional which forbids what the U.S. Constitution allows.
Meyer v Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399; 43 S Ct 625, 626; 67 L Ed 1043 (1923) reveals that The Constitution protects our ‘liberty.’ Case law shows that the ‘liberty’ protected by the Fourteenth Amendment extends beyond freedom from bodily restraint and includes a much wider range of human activity, including the opportunity to make a wide range of personal decisions concerning one’s life, family, and private pursuits.
from: Amendments to False Claims Act Make Failure to Return Overpayments Basis for Civil False Claim Action
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/amendments-to-false-claims-act-make-failure-to-return-overpayments-
“the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (FERA) . . . deleted any requirement for liability that an entity directly present a claim to the government, so that an entity may now incur liability if it “knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval.” In addition, an entity now may also be liable if it “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim.” This latter amendment applies to all claims under the False Claims Act pending on or after June 7, 2008.
FERA now creates liability under the FCA for the knowing failure to return overpayments, and it makes the FCA clearly applicable to government funds distributed by states or intermediaries rather than directly from the federal government. The amendments also require violators to reimburse the federal government for the costs of a civil action to recover penalties or damages.”
I don’t find the Chief’s words about supporting the end of marijuana prohibition anywhere in the local media there.
Have I missed it?
Jose Melendez:
Again, you are completely misinterpreting the False Claims Act. It applies to contracters defrauding the government for payment, not the scientific validity of legislation.
Constitutional challenges to Federal authority over drug law have failed. The latest case being Gonzales v. Raich. I suggest you read the summary.
Again, there is no law requiring the government to schedule drugs based purely on scientific validity. It is apparent you have not fully read or understood the Controlled Substances Act and the drug scheduling process.
Misinterpreting? All I did was quote it, and anyway, the whole drug war operates on contracts and contractors.
http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/csa.html
“Constitutional challenges to Federal authority over drug law have failed. The latest case being Gonzales v. Raich. I suggest you read the summary.”
The Syllabus does not mention if the court in Gonzales v. Raich court determined or even reviewed the Constitutional or rational basis for including cannabis and cannabinoids in Schedule I despite the facts of it’s safe, accepted medical use in the United States.
Oral arguments, petitioner’s and respondent’s briefs are available with the syllabus here:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454/
from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
“California’s Compassionate Use Act authorizes limited marijuana use for medicinal purposes. Respondents Raich and Monson are California residents who both use doctor-recommended marijuana for serious medical conditions. After federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents seized and destroyed all six of Monson’s cannabis plants, respondents brought this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to the extent it prevents them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use. Respondents claim that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause and other constitutional provisions. The District Court denied respondents’ motion for a preliminary injunction, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that they had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the claim that the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority as applied to the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical purposes as recommended by a patient’s physician pursuant to valid California state law. ”
“All controlled substances are classified into five schedules, §812, based on their accepted medical uses, their potential for abuse, and their psychological and physical effects on the body, §§811, 812. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, §812(c), based on its high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use, and no accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment, §812(b)(1). This classification renders the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana a criminal offense. §§841(a)(1), 844(a). Pp. 6—11.”
“The Ninth Circuit cast doubt on the CSA’s constitutionality by isolating a distinct class of activities that it held to be beyond the reach of federal power: the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician and in accordance with state law. However, Congress clearly acted rationally in determining that this subdivided class of activities is an essential part of the larger regulatory scheme. ”
from the petitoner’s brief:
“. . . respondents’ purported
medicinal use of marijuana, a schedule I drug, directly
interferes with Congress’ comprehensive regulation of
the drug and squarely conflicts with Congress’s determination
that the drug has no accepted medicinal use.”
source:
http://www.oyez.org/sites/default/files/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454/briefs/Petitioner%27s%20brief.pdf
from the respondent’s:
“For purposes of the CSA, marijuana is classified as a schedule I drug with “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,†id. § 812(b)(1)(B), (c).3 Despite this classification, “the public record reflect[s] a legitimate and growing division of informed opinion on this issue.†Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 640 (9th Cir. 2002)”
“Federal law defines “marihuana†to mean “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L†except “the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, . . . or the sterilized seed of such plant.†21 U.S.C. § 802(16). In this brief, the term “cannabis†refers to any part of the plant Cannabis sativa L used for medical purposes.”
source: http://www.oyez.org/sites/default/files/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454/briefs/Respondent%27s%20brief.pdf
As an ex-cop I deplore the use of paramilitary tactics for normal, municipal law enforcement activities. All American citizens must stand four-square against this practice. Ken Burton is a dollar short and many days late. If he has ANY personal integrity (which I sincerely doubt) he should immediately fire ALL of the officers that participated in this raid, then resign himself. This man is unfit, in my opinion, to carry a badge. He, and his ilk, make me ashamed that I EVER carried a badge. I am more than willing to fly from my current home in central Mexico to Columbia, Missouri and say that to his face, in public. But, of course, this official coward would not have the courage to debate me in public. BURTON, TAKE OFF YOUR BADGE, and apologize to me and thousands of other retired officers who assumed their duties to be “To Protect and to Serve” their citizens–not to terrorize and murder them.