Pubdate: Mon, 20 Feb 2012
Source: Columbian, The (WA)
Copyright: 2012 The Columbian Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.columbian.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/92
Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v11/n482/a05.html

FOLLOW FEDERAL LAW

County Commissioners Correctly Decide to Protect Employees From Prosecution

Athough many local residents might suspect there's a legalizing-pot 
debate under way among Clark County leaders, that's really not the 
case. A more accurate description is that of a legal dilemma. County 
commissioners are caught in a tug of war between a new state law that 
allows collective medical marijuana gardens, and federal law that 
prohibits growing, distributing and possessing the substance.Last 
year, the commissioners made the right call when they imposed a 
moratorium on implementing the state law, and now they say they will 
extend that moratorium beyond its July expiration date. That, too, 
appears to be a correct decision, even more so in light of a recent 
letter to county commissioners from the U.S. Department of Justice. 
As Stephanie Rice reported in Friday's Columbian, commissioners had 
asked the feds if county employees would be immune from prosecution 
if they perform tasks related to zoning and permitting of 
state-sanctioned collective medical! marijuana gardens. That seems to 
be a question of profound importance, especially of county employees 
who don't want to face federal criminal charges for doing their jobs.

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, deputy assistant administrator of the federal 
department's Office of Diversion Control, left no doubt about the 
answer. Not only has Congress "determined that marijuana is a 
schedule I controlled substance," but also, "growing, distributing, 
and possessing marijuana in any capacity ... is a violation of 
federal law regardless of state laws permitting such activities."

Medical marijuana advocates will point out that President Obama's 
policies on the matter have wavered, but at the federal level at 
least, the law is the law. And in the context of feedback from the 
Justice Department, the letter is the letter.

As we noted in an editorial on July 22 last year, this isn't a drug 
debate, it's a zoning matter, and one that remains very much 
unresolved. That is why city councils in Vancouver and elsewhere in 
Clark County have also enacted moratoriums on collective medical 
marijuana gardens.

If county commissioners feel obliged to wait until state and federal 
laws are more closely aligned, especially if that means protecting 
county employees from prosecution, we don't blame them.

And here's another thing that's easily understandable: Axel Swanson, 
the commissioners' senior policy adviser, says he's received calls 
from other local governments wanting a copy of the letter from Rannazzisi.

The new state law legalizes collective medical marijuana gardens 
limited to 10 people growing up to 45 plants at one site. Local 
jurisdictions were left to decide where those gardens would be 
allowed, and widespread consensus eliminates sites near schools, 
parks, churches, business districts and neighborhoods. Some 
suggestions for possible sites have included industrial zones. But 
none of that matters as long as state law conflicts with federal law. 
Furthermore, Rannazzisi's letter contained an ominous second warning, 
that county employees conducting work related to medical marijuana 
gardens "may also be subject to money laundering statutes."

There might be a time in the distant future when legislatures and 
Congress agree on collective medical marijuana gardens. Until that 
time, protecting public employees from federal prosecution obviously 
is the correct stance.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom