Beginning January 1, prosecutors in Harris County, Texas, will no longer file felony drug charges against people found with less than one one-hundredth of a gram of illegal drugs.

Prosecution: No More Crack Pipe Felonies for Houston

Beginning January 1, prosecutors in Harris County, Texas, will no longer file felony drug charges against people found with less than one one-hundreth of a gram of illegal drugs. Currently in Houston, people caught with trace amounts of drug or holding crack pipes with drug traces are routinely charged with felonies.

But under a new policy promulgated by Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos, police are instructed to instead issue Class C misdemeanor tickets to people caught in possession of crack pipes or trace amounts of drugs. That means arrestees will face only a $500 fine, not the up to two years in state jail mandated by the felony charge.

The cops are not happy. “It ties the hands of the officers who are making crack pipe cases against burglars and thieves,” said Gary Blankinship, president of the Houston Police Officers' Union. “A crack pipe is not used for anything but smoking crack by a crack head. Crack heads, by and large, are also thieves and burglars. They're out there committing crimes,” he told the Houston Chronicle.

But Lykos told the Chronicle there were good reasons to change the policy. Less than one-hundreth of a gram of a drug is not enough for more than one drug test, and defense attorneys often want to run their own tests, she said.

San Diego ASA proudly presents:
Lessons Learned, the Jackson Verdict

K. Lance Rogers, Turner Law Group, APC

A seldom-discussed but significant weak link in the drug war infrastructure is the ability of any defendant to have their fate decided by a jury. Although the threat of draconian sentences leads the vast majority to plead out and accept an agreed-upon punishment, those who choose to fight it out before a jury of their peers have an opportunity to escape the drug war's icy death-grip. It's a high-risk/high-reward strategy that could become more effective as public support for the war on drugs continues to decline.

A not guilty verdict in San Diego this week highlights the difficulty of securing convictions against medical marijuana providers:

SAN DIEGO COURTS — A Navy veteran who was the manager of a medical marijuana dispensary was acquitted of five charges of possessing and selling the drug illegally yesterday, a verdict that emboldened medical marijuana activists and was a setback for San Diego prosecutors who have aggressively pursued medical marijuana cases. [San Diego Union Tribune]

Meanwhile, in Baltimore, the acquittal of an accused street dealer shows how aggressive drug war tactics have eroded public trust in police:

Only two witnesses testified at the two-day trial – Correa [the arresting officer] and a crime lab technician who tested the drugs and concluded they were indeed heroin and cocaine. Defense attorney Marie Sennett told jurors in her opening statement that the case rested solely "on the word of the officer."

And, Sennett added, "Unfortunately, that's not enough."

The jury agreed and acquitted Walker-Bey on all charges of possessing drugs and possessing drugs with intent to distribute. [Baltimore Sun]

In a climate of increased public skepticism surrounding the efficacy of the war on drugs and the fairness of the criminal justice system, outcomes like these will hopefully become more commonplace. When the jury refuses to play along, even the virtually unchecked prosecutorial powers that have done so much to fill our prisons with drug offenders can be overcome. There's no reliable formula for spotting jurors who might be reluctant to convict in a drug case, and it only takes one to complicate the process dramatically. Provided they don't, for example, write a blog about legalizing drugs, getting on a jury can be as simple as dressing appropriately and affirming their willingness to uphold the law.

The power of juries to reshape the drug war landscape can already be seen in California, where prosecutors learned years ago that medical marijuana cases aren't nearly as open and shut as federal law would suggest. The Ed Rosenthal saga, in which the jury revolted after the verdict and got the conviction thrown out, gave federal prosecutors an early taste of what lay ahead if they tried to win the war on medical marijuana in the courtroom.

Such events go a long way towards explaining why DEA agents so often raided dispensaries and confiscated profits, while declining to press charges against anyone. Every medical marijuana trial is a guaranteed public relations nightmare and there's no upside if you can't even count on a conviction. I've long suspected that the threat of uncooperative juries may in fact have been the most significant factor in enabling California's medical marijuana industry to survive and expand during the Bush Administration. With little confidence in their ability to make an example of anybody, the Feds just broke stuff instead, while leaving the industry almost completely intact.

With marijuana legalization now rapidly approaching majority support among the American public, it just seems inevitable that prosecutors will have a harder time getting groups of 12 random people to send someone to jail for marijuana. And if that happens, even a little, the implications are far-reaching. The criminal justice system is pathetically dependent on plea-bargaining in drug cases, and would grind to a halt rather quickly if more defendants insisted on taking their case to trial.

I'm beginning to fantasize here, obviously, but I do think it's important to start looking at some of the ways in which growing public support for our cause can manifest itself in contexts besides just the ballot box. The drug war is vulnerable on all fronts and the harder we work to expose and exploit its countless weakness, the more efficient and decisive our victory will be.

For more on the rights of jurors, visit the Fully Informed Jury Association.

A Morrocan appeals court Tuesday rejected the appeal of a human rights activist who had publicly criticized

For years, getting caught trying to smuggle drugs across the US-Mexican border meant being handed over to US authorities for prosecution.

US Rep.

Editor's Note: We wanted to get this important story posted today, but we will develop it further for the Drug War Chronicle on Friday.

In a new federal medical marijuana policy memo issued this morning to the DEA, FBI, and US Attorneys around the country, the Justice Department told prosecutors that medical marijuana patients and providers in states where it is legal should not be targeted for federal prosecution. The memo formalizes statements made by Attorney General Eric Holder in February and March that going after pot-smoking patients and their suppliers would not be a high Justice Department priority.

The memo marks a sharp break with federal policy under the Clinton and Bush administrations, both of which aggressively targeted medical marijuana operations, especially in California, the state that has the broadest law and the highest number of medical marijuana patients.

The announcement of the policy shift won kudos from the marijuana and broader drug reform movement. But some reformers questioned what the shift would actually mean on the ground, pointing to DEA raids and federal prosecutions that have occurred since Holder's signal this spring that the feds were to back off, as well as continuing controversies, especially in California, over what exactly is legal under state law. Others noted that for real protection to be in place, federal law—not just prosecutorial policy—needs to change.

In the memo, federal prosecutors were told that going after people who use or provide medical marijuana in accordance with state law was not the best use of their time or resources. According to the memo, while the Justice Department continues to make enforcing federal drug laws a key mission:

"As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities 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. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources."

But the memo also said that federal prosecutors should continue to target marijuana production or sales operations that are illicit but hiding behind state medical marijuana laws. It explicitly singled out cases involving which involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or involvement in other crimes.

"It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal," said Attorney General Holder.

"This is a huge victory for medical marijuana patients," said Steph Sherer, executive director of Americans for Safe Access, the nationwide medical marijuana advocacy organization, which had been in negotiations with the Justice Department to get written guidelines issued. "This indicates that President Obama intends to keep his promise not to undermine state medical marijuana laws and represents a significant departure from the policies of the Bush Administration," continued Sherer. "We will continue to work with President Obama, the Justice Department, and the US Congress to establish a comprehensive national policy, but it's good to know that in the meantime states can implement medical marijuana laws without interference from the federal government."

"This is the most significant, positive policy development on the federal level for medical marijuana since 1978," said the Marijuana Policy Project in a message to its list members today.

"It's great to see the Obama administration making good on the promises that candidate Obama made last year. These new guidelines effectively open the door to sensible collaboration between state governments and medical marijuana providers in ensuring that patients have safe and reliable access to their medicine," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "What remains unclear is how the Justice Department will respond to rogue state attorneys, such as San Diego's Bonnie Dumanis, who persist in undermining state medical marijuana laws in their local jurisdictions. Now is the right time for the Obama administration to move forward with federal legislation to end the irrational prohibition of medical marijuana under federal law."

While the policy memo was "encouraging," the "proof will be in the pudding," said California NORML head Dale Gieringer, who also cited the recent raids in San Diego, as well as the August federal indictment of two Lake County medical marijuana providers. "Note that the new Obama policy has a glaring loophole, emphasizing that 'prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and ... it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law,'" Gieringer said. "The salient question is, who decides what is 'without a doubt' in compliance with state law? As shown by the recent statements of LA's DA and City Attorney, there exist significant doubts about the legality of most dispensaries in California. It remains to be seen how far the administration's new policy guidelines will go to prevent further abuses, when what is really needed is fundamental reform of federal laws and regulations."

And so opens the next chapter in America's long, twisted path to the acceptance of medical marijuana.

When Attorney General Eric Holder announced back in March that he would not use Justice Department resources to go after medical marijuana patients and providers in states where it is legal unless

Drug courts have spread all across the country since the first one was instituted in Miami 20 years ago by then local prosecutor Janet Reno, but now, the nation's largest group of criminal defense

San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis claims to be a friend of medical marijuana, but one would be hard-pressed to find anyone in the local medical marijuana community who would agree w

The government's war against pain doctors hit a new low last spring, when federal prosecutor Tanya Treadway, busy prosecuting Kansans Steve and Linda Schneider, subpoenaed pain control advocate Siobhan Reynolds for information on the Pain Relief Network's (PRN) public advocacy in support of the Schneiders.

Despite ACLU efforts to quash the subpoena as an attempt to shut down free speech, judge US District Judge Julie Robinson allowed it. Friday, according an update from Jacob Sullum on Reason, Robinson imposed a $200/day civil contempt fine on both Reynolds and PRN, to begin in 10 days if she does not comply with the subpoena. An appeal is planned -- stay tuned.

Earlier in the week, Boston-based civil liberties attorney Harvey Silverglate criticized Treadway in a column in Forbes magazine. We reprint a few paragraphs, also via Sullum:

When Reynolds wrote op-eds in local newspapers and granted interviews to other media outlets, Assistant U.S. Attorney Tanya Treadway attempted to impose a gag order on her public advocacy. The district judge correctly denied this extraordinary request.

Undeterred, Treadway filed on March 27 a subpoena demanding a broad range of documents and records, obviously hoping to deter the peripatetic pain relief advocate, or even target her for a criminal trial of her own. Just what was Reynolds' suspected criminal activity?

"Obstruction of justice" is the subpoena's listed offense being investigated, but some of the requested records could, in no possible way, prove such a crime. The prosecutor has demanded copies of an ominous-sounding "movie," which, in reality, is a PRN-produced documentary showing the plight of pain physicians. Also requested were records relating to a billboard Reynolds paid to have erected over a busy Wichita highway. It read: "Dr. Schneider never killed anyone." Suddenly, a rather ordinary exercise in free speech and political activism became evidence of an obstruction of justice.

The US Supreme Court Tuesday ruled that a law making it a felony to use a communication device in "committing or in causing or in facilitating" a drug deal cannot be used against drug purchasers wh

Former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, a rock-ribbed conservative who made his national name as an opponent of illegal immigration and "open borders,"

• read full post
• 12 comments

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has joined pain activist Siobhan Reynolds and the