Mexico has removed custodial penalties for possession of personal use quantities of drugs. But many law enforcement agents along the border are upset that the change in Mexican law will make it easier for Americans to go to Mexico, purchase drugs, and bring them back across the border.

Other countries in Central and South America have taken similar steps. Brazil and Uruguay have removed jail penalties for possession of personal use quantities. Columbia has removed jail as a penalty for personal use amounts of marijuana and cocaine. The Argentine Supreme Court has ruled out jail as a penalty for marijuana possession.

Portugal has limited the penalties for possession of up to a ten day supply to treatment, a fine or probation.

If there are four things we know about drug use they are:

1. Drug use leads to addiction.
2. Addiction is a chronic disease with relapse as a common result.
3. Putting people in prison or jail does not cure the disease.
4. The cost of putting addicts in prison is much greater than treating the disease

While legalization may be a while off in the United States bills legalizing the use of marijuana have been introduced in Massachusetts and California.

Last week a Federal/State task force raided two Los Angeles area marijuana dispensaries. At first blush it would appear that the Feds were violating the promises made by President Obama during the campaign and later by Attorney General Holder not to interfere with state medical marijuana laws.

While the DEA, FBI, Internal Revenue Service, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Los Angeles Police Department, Torrance Police Department and Culver City Police Department all took part in the raids, the raids appear to have been directed by State authorities with the feds only helping out. The Los Angeles Police Department applied for the Search Warrant which was granted by a Superior Court judge. This would indicate that the affidavit supporting the search warrant alleges a violation of state law. But no one involved–neither the police department or the DEA are publicly admitting what violation occurred.

The task force raided Organica Collective in Culver City, and the Overland Gardens Collective in West Los Angeles . The clubs are owned by Jeffrey Joseph. His house was also raided and he was arrested. He is now out on bail. They seized 100 pounds of marijuana, 200 live plants, and $100,000 in cash. None of this necessarily indicates anything other than a dispensary which sells marijuana to patients who have the approval of their doctors to legally possess marijuana.

The Organica Collective posted a statement on opposingview,com denying any violation of state law.

The law requires that the police file the search warrant affidavit within ten days of the search and it then becomes public. Therefore it should be filed within the next week and we will know the allegations.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that reasonable suspicion existed to pat down Deonta Lemont Stigler after the police were called to a neighborhood known for drug sales regarding a fight between three African American men.

When Officers Michael Dixson and Ryan Doty arrived on the scene they saw two African American men on the sidewalk. One of the men, Stigler ran across the street and then started walking. Dixson asked Stigler about a fight. Stigler, according to the decision, threw a plastic baggie, later determined to have marijuana in it on the ground. Dixson then initiated a Terry stop and a pat search. A Terry stop requires that an officer have a reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred and that the person stopped has a connection to the crime. It can only last long enough for the officer to investigate the crime. A pat search can occur simultaneously to the stop as long as the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person stopped has a weapon. During the pat search a gun was found.

Stigler moved to suppress the gun on the basis that the police did not have a reasonable suspicion that he was involved in a crime or that he had a weapon. After the suppression motion was denied Stigler plead guilty, reserving the right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion.

On appeal the court found that based upon the “totality of the circumstances” the Terry stop and the pat search were legal. The court based its decision on the throwing down of the baggie and Stigler’s startled demeanor, along with Stigler’s initial running away and being in an area known for drug transactions. The pat down according to the court was justified by the report of a fight and fear that a weapon may have been involved.

My question is why did Stigler throw the baggie with marijuana on the ground or did he actually throw the baggie down? There was no trial so the “facts” before the trial and appellate courts did not include a trial transcript. Most likely the Eighth Circuit was working with the transcript of a hearing held on the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence. Its possible that the defendant did not testify at the hearing. In many cases the defense attorney and the defendant decide that the defendant should not testify at a motion to suppress evidence since the defendant’s testimony at the hearing can be used by the district attorney for cross examination at trial. The defendant would not want to answer questions such as what was in the baggie or why were you carrying a gun? If so the only evidence was the police officer’s testimony. But even if the defendant testified at the hearing the court would give additional weight to the officer’s testimony since in a case where the defendant has plead guilty and the District Court denied the motion to suppress the appellate court must decide factual issues in favor of the winning side (the prosecution in this case) in the District Court.

Unless you believe that police officers always tell the truth, you must have some doubt that Stigler threw the marijuana on the ground. Stigler had nothing do gain by throwing it down. After all he still had the concealed weapon. And the police officer could not justify the search without the marijuana being thrown on the ground. This is not to say that defendants never do stupid things but it certainly raises a doubt about the search.

Last month Attorney General Eric Holder announced that government resources will not be used to raid medical marijuana distributors in those states where medical marijuana is legal in compliance with President Obama’s desire not to spend money busting dispensaries. Yet last week the DEA raided Emmalyn’s, a medical cannabis dispensary in San Francisco.

One question that must be asked is who is in charge. Does Holder control the DEA or does the DEA control Holder. President Obama has yet to appoint a director for the DEA. Bush appointee Michele Leonhard is the acting director.

Legislators in California and Massachusetts introduced bills legalizing the cultivation, use, possession and sale of marijuana. In California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s bill, which would place a fifty dollar per ounce tax on marijuana would provide 1.3 billion dollars for the state according to a study conducted by the State Board of Equalization.

Likewise the Massachusetts law would regulate and tax marijuana. The Massachusetts law, if passed would raise $100 million for the state coffers. Not only would the legalization of marijuana allow the states to collect significant taxes on it sale but it would also save the states significant money now used to enforce the marijuana laws. Both states would allow those over 21 to use marijuana. Marijuana would remain illegal, at least for the time being, under Federal law.

California has been a leader in the medical marijuana movement since the 1996 passage of Proposition 215 and currently collects 20 million dollars in sales tax on medical marijuana sales.

Prior to 1937 marijuana was legal in the United States. But shortly after the end of prohibition 1n 1933, Congress passed an act making it illegal. But despite hundreds of thousands of arrests the government has not been able to prohibit the use of marijuana and its use continues to grow.

Just as no one in the 21st century would advocate the prohibition of alcohol, the prohibition of marijuana should be abolished. Both drugs if used in excess can result in considerable harm but criminalizing the use, possession and sale of these drugs does not result in any benefit to society. In fact criminalization has only resulted in increased use. Hopefully some of the money saved from the decreased cost of prisons, lawyers, judges, police, and other related criminal justice expenses as well as some of the money collected in taxes on marijuana can be used to treat those who use it excessively.