Preacher
Member
In November 2012, the states of Washington and Colorado voted to legalize marijuana for recreational use. Nearly five months have passed after this unprecented change in drug laws, and due to marijuana still being completely illegal on a federal level, many have been left wondering what exactly the DEA and DOJ intend to do with regard to enforcement. So far, no answer from either group or from Attorney General Eric Holder have arisen- in fact, to date, the most specific reply any government agent has given is the Gil Kerlikowske himself, President Obama’s director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. He recently replied to the issue in an interview with a Canadian publication, stating "You’ll continue to see enforcement against distributors and large-scale growers as the Justice Department has outlined. They will use their limited resources on those groups and not on going after individual users". This still leaves many Americans searching for a more precise answer. Which distributors? How large is considered to be large-scale enough?
Today, in an exclusive interview with the drug czar, I finally got some answers.
Q: I’d like to address the scope of your continuing federal crack-downs in Washington and Colorado with regard to marijuana. What do you consider to be a distributor and a large-scale grower exactly?
A: Well that’s easy! Anyone who makes it worth our while!
Q: Wait, what?
A: Why do you think we give one hot fuck about busting growers and not states’ rights? It’s the asset seizure, stupid! Legalization means they have to pay state income tax. We just pull those records, look up who’s making any real fuckin’ money off of this and kick a bunch of doors down come April 16th. It’s at least on the top five easiest ways we’ve come up with to stealing money and besides, daddy needs a sweet new Corvete!
Q: So... it’s not about public health, getting drugs off the streets, reducing vehicular accidents or diverting users to treatment facilities?
A: [stifling laughter] Ask the National Institute of Health.
Q: Going back to asset seizure. Does it concern you that treating assets as people in court is perhaps unconstitutional?
A: [four minutes and forty-seven seconds of consecutive raucous laughter, during which “like we give a fuck about the Constitution” is heard nearest I can tell]
Q: While you’re being refreshingly honest, I have to ask, did you mean what you said about not using limited resources to go after individual users?
A: Unfortunately, for the time being, yes. The DEA really does have a limited presence in Washington and Colorado compared to the number of recreational users. Now depending on how many jobs we end up being able to add with the fat stacks of cash we can steal in the upcoming months... well, we’ll see what happens in a year’s time.
Q: I think that’s about all. Thank you for your time.
A: No problem. It’s nice to get this off my chest from time to time. Just one more thing.
The interview is concluded by me being forced to sign a strict non-disclosure agreement, and I comply.
UPDATE: my court hearing is scheduled for June 25th. I face a fine up to $500,000.
Today, in an exclusive interview with the drug czar, I finally got some answers.
Q: I’d like to address the scope of your continuing federal crack-downs in Washington and Colorado with regard to marijuana. What do you consider to be a distributor and a large-scale grower exactly?
A: Well that’s easy! Anyone who makes it worth our while!
Q: Wait, what?
A: Why do you think we give one hot fuck about busting growers and not states’ rights? It’s the asset seizure, stupid! Legalization means they have to pay state income tax. We just pull those records, look up who’s making any real fuckin’ money off of this and kick a bunch of doors down come April 16th. It’s at least on the top five easiest ways we’ve come up with to stealing money and besides, daddy needs a sweet new Corvete!
Q: So... it’s not about public health, getting drugs off the streets, reducing vehicular accidents or diverting users to treatment facilities?
A: [stifling laughter] Ask the National Institute of Health.
Q: Going back to asset seizure. Does it concern you that treating assets as people in court is perhaps unconstitutional?
A: [four minutes and forty-seven seconds of consecutive raucous laughter, during which “like we give a fuck about the Constitution” is heard nearest I can tell]
Q: While you’re being refreshingly honest, I have to ask, did you mean what you said about not using limited resources to go after individual users?
A: Unfortunately, for the time being, yes. The DEA really does have a limited presence in Washington and Colorado compared to the number of recreational users. Now depending on how many jobs we end up being able to add with the fat stacks of cash we can steal in the upcoming months... well, we’ll see what happens in a year’s time.
Q: I think that’s about all. Thank you for your time.
A: No problem. It’s nice to get this off my chest from time to time. Just one more thing.
The interview is concluded by me being forced to sign a strict non-disclosure agreement, and I comply.
UPDATE: my court hearing is scheduled for June 25th. I face a fine up to $500,000.
