Articles

Planet Green Trees Episode # 79

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 16:36:19 +0000

http://www.michiganm..._1022_20176.jpg

Planet Green Trees Webisode #77

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 01:11:58 +0000

http://www.michiganm...1031_525429.gif

Planet Green Trees Webisode #76

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:19:24 +0000

Planet Green Trees Episode 76 - Matt Abel Canna...

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:35:14 +0000

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees/2012/01/13/episode-76-lets-end-prohibition-w-atty-matt-abel

HostedBy: Attorney Michael Komorn

VeryImportant Show Last Night. History is Made

Thelargest medical marihuana patient advocacy group in Michigan, The MichiganMedical Marihuana Association, CEO Joe Cain, President Michael Komorn, pledgetheir support for a constitutional amendment to repeal the prohibition ofmarihuana. As stated by Joe Cain, Bill Schuette has given patients no choice butto support this initiative, our community of sick people are scared. Thegovernment needs to be talking about getting the cards out on time and addingnew conditions to the registry, not limiting the protections of the act.

Also:Shakina Pena calls in to report on her victory after a jury trial allegingvoter fraud ( a politically motivated prosecution)

AlsoNick Agro calls in to talk about the tortured story of the Agro family over thelast 2 years but reports on finally getting some justice, when Judge Dan Obriandismisses all charges in the Clinical Relief case.

http://www.blogtalkr...lanetgreentrees

PLANETGREENTREES Call-in Number: (347) 326-9626

Call-inNumber: (347)326-9626

Webisode #76 - Planet Green Trees

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:26:10 +0000

Webisode #76
http://www.michiganm..._1031_35844.gif

Kalamazoo Voters To Decide Marijuana Enforcemen...

Fri, 04 Nov 2011 03:21:23 +0000

By: Raven Thompson
Kalamazoo, MI
November 3, 2011
WMUK
Download

Listen to this report (5:19)

Kalamazoo City ballot question

Possessing even small amounts of marijuana in Michigan is illegal without a state medical marijuana I-D card. Violators convicted of the misdemeanor charge can face up to a year in jail. But on Tuesday, November 8th, voters in Kalamazoo will decide whether or not to make possession of an ounce or less of marijuana by someone 21 or older the “lowest law enforcement priority” in the City. WMUK’s Raven Thompson reports:

The issue wound up on the ballot after supporters gathered enough petition signatures to put it there. The campaign by the group Kalamazoo Coalition for Pragmatic Cannabis Laws was led by Louis Stocking. He wasn’t available for interviews. But other supporters have spoken out. They include Kalamazoo Attorney Daniel Grow. He says the proposal to de-emphasize pursuit of offenders who have small amounts of marijuana is a vote on police priorities:

[Daniel Grow] “Making the pursuit of crimes like rape, theft, child endangerment those types of things; crimes where someone’s harmed or property is stolen a higher priority then crimes that are merely a crime because they’ve been designated as such for the possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. The police department’s resources and the court’s resources are limited and this ballot initiative allows the voters to tell the court system and police department that they want the more serious crimes to be the top priority and these statutory crimes involving the possession of marijuana to be the lowest priority for law enforcement.”

But Jeff Hadley, Kalamazoo’s Chief of Public Safety, says he doesn’t think much would change if voters approve the proposal:

[Jeff Hadley] “We don’t dedicate specific resources to the enforcement of marijuana; it just comes by way of many other things. And it is illegal to poses marijuana and we are sworn to uphold the law and enforce it in a fair and just manner, so I’m not sure what impact it will have on how we operate.”

Hadley says Kalamazoo Public Safety officers usually make small marijuana busts as the result of traffic stops or other kinds of unrelated offenses. He says his officers already don’t switch on their lights and sirens in pursuit of people who have a few joints, although Hadley says those trafficking in large amounts of pot are a different matter.

Kalamazoo’s City Attorney Clyde Robinson also says he doesn’t think the proposed ordinance would change much when all is said at done:

[Clyde Robinson] “It will be a part of the City Charter, but the question as to its affect on public safety operations is up in the air given the fact that there is no local ordinance addressing the use or possession of marijuana except for permitting marijuana as a home occupation.”

That last is allowed under Michigan’s voter-approved medical marijuana law.

Charles Ream is the statewide coordinator of the Safer Michigan Coalition. It supports “Lowest Law Enforcement Priority”, or LLEP initiatives, like the one in Kalamazoo. Ream says the proposal is about allocation:

[Charles Ream] “I produced a six-page document which lays out this scientific data by academic criminologists which proves, it’s not just an opinion, it proves that when you apply resources to chasing after marijuana or drugs that you reduce the resources that you have that are available for fighting real crime. And you actually diminish the amount of real crime that is solved.”

But City Attorney Clyde Robinson says Kalamazoo officers are only enforcing state marijuana laws. He points to a case in Ypsilanti in the 1970’s. It had an ordinance that made possession of small amounts of marijuana a civil, rather than a criminal infraction. It also required police officers to refer cases to city officials rather than the county prosecutor:

[Clyde Robinson] “Ypsilanti officers proceeded through state statute and that was challenged and the courts have said a police officer has the ability to enforce state law and they can’t be precluded from doing so.”

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette makes the same point. He says the proposed Kalamazoo ordinance conflicts with state law and can’t be enforced if it is approved. But Schuette couldn’t prevent it from going to voters because the state constitution doesn’t give the attorney general authority to block ballot questions based on petitions.

Kalamazoo attorney Daniel Grow says that’s as it should be. He hopes Kalamazoo voters will approve the marijuana enforcement ordinance, and that officials at all levels will listen:

[Daniel Grow] “Our elected officials simply have to heed the voices of our voters. If the Michigan voters, the people on the street, think the police and the court system have gone too far in one area and have neglected another area of the law, then I think it’s imperative that they respect that voice. There’s always an argument that can be made, you know, a technical argument in terms of whether legally this is the best way to go about it or the only way to go about it, but I don’t think that’s important. I think it’s important that our elected officials hear the voice of the people who they are supposed to be serving.”

Kalamazoo voters almost had two marijuana propositions to consider this fall. Another group circulated petitions to get a question before voters that would allow three medical marijuana “dispensaries” in the City. Supporters gathered enough signatures but the question didn’t make it on the ballot because of counting mistakes by the City Clerk’s office.

Kalamazoo voters will decide the proposed marijuana enforcement ordinance November 8th.

© Copyright 2011, WMUK

My link

Confidentiality .. It's In The Law. So What...

Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:03:10 +0000

Confidentiality within the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.

The confidentiality section of the MMMA is located in section 6 (h).

A common mistake evolves when someone tries to apply HIPPA law to issues of confidentiality within the MMMA. These are two very different laws. HIPPA does not protect the identity of a medical marijuana caregiver. The MMMA does not protect dental records. There is an overlap of the two laws. Those overlaps are minimal. The differences are major.

There is very little medical information that is maintained in the MDCH data file. Nearly every item is identification in nature. Our law was not intended to provide anyone with a list of local medical marijuana patients and or caregivers to ANY employee or official of government.

There are several items, located in 6 (h) (1) and (2) that are placed within the protections of this section.

The nature of all of the items that the MMMA places the protection of confidentiality upon are informational. It is the information within the registry file at the MDCH in Lansing. This information is protected on it’s way toward that file, while in the file and proceeding from the file.

Any copy of the information that has made it’s way to, or is on it’s way to, the MDCH file is protected. For example, a patient retains a copy of the application in the event that the MDCH takes longer than twenty days. After the twenty days the retained copy of paperwork with it’s supporting information, serves the function of being a “temporary ID card” until the plastic arrives in the mail.

This retained copy is a mirror image of the collective information that will be or is within the master file at the MDCH.

It is the information that is protected and not just the literal piece of paper that is submitted:

(1) Applications and supporting information submitted by qualifying patients, including information regarding their primary caregivers and physicians, are confidential.

When considering the specific action that is forbidden of the MDCH to do with such records, it should be noted that it is the information that is forbidden from release via FOIA request. Clearly this is talking about the release of information and not the literal paper application.

Information is quickly passed from one person to the next in our information age.

The next paragraph places emphasis on every iota of information contained within the file that the MDCH keeps:

(2) The department shall maintain a confidential list of the persons to whom the department has issued registry identification cards. Individual names and other identifying information on the list is confidential and is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.

Even the names are given the protections of this section. Identifying information would include names, addresses, phone numbers, drivers license numbers, social security numbers etc.

Two different views that exist about this paragraph.

· This paragraph only forbids disclosure in response to a FOIA request.

· This paragraph forbids disclosure in any way INCLUDING a response to a FOIA request.

The second view seems to have been adapted by the MDCH in it’s rules.

Rule 333.121:

Rule 21. (1) Except as provided in subrules (2) and (3) of this rule, Michigan medical marijuana program information shall be confidential and not subject to disclosure in any form or manner. Program information includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:

a] Applications and supporting information submitted by qualifying patients.

b] Information related to a qualifying patient’s primary caregiver.

c] Names and other identifying information of registry identification cardholders.

d] Names and other identifying information of pending applicants and their primary caregivers.

(2) Names and other identifying information made confidential under subrule (1) of this rule may only be accessed or released to authorized employees of the department as necessary to perform official duties of the department pursuant to the act, including the production of any reports of non-identifying aggregate data or statistics.

(3)The department shall verify upon a request by law enforcement personnel whether a registry identification card is valid, without disclosing more information than is reasonably necessary to verify the authenticity of the registry identification card.

(4) The department may release information to other persons only upon receipt of a properly executed release of information signed by all individuals with legal authority to waive confidentiality regarding that information, whether a registered qualifying patient, a qualifying patient's parent or legal guardian, or a qualifying patient’s registered primary caregiver. The release of information shall specify what information the department is authorized to release and to whom.

(5) Violation of these confidentiality rules may subject an individual to the penalties provided for under section 6(h)(4) of the act.

There is a serious omission of doctors protections. They are mentioned in the law yet ignored in the rules. The identities of the doctors are an item protected under the law itself.

To whom the duty of confidentiality is owed.

Many have asserted that the patient may wave confidentiality of these records.

The MDCH rules in paragraph 4 indicate that several people are owed the confidentiality provided within the records that involve a patient: Each of those other people are required to sign waivers before one iota of information is to be released about the mmj patient. Not just simply a waiver from the patient, but every other person named in the patients record.

Persons targeted by paragraph section 6 (h) (4) of the law.

This paragraph contains a list of authorities.

"including an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government,"

The inclusion of “local units of government” supports the idea that this section of law applies to much more than what the MDCH, or it’s employees.

One popular interpretation is that this criminal disclosure can only take place by persons employed by the MDCH in response to a FOIA request. That would leave out employees of local units of government. Yet those employees of local units of government are on the list of possible offenders.

Again, the MDCH interpretation of the confidentiality section assumes the more conservative stance. That is that ANY disclosure of ANY information that identifies ANYONE may be a violation of criminal law.

So far, we’ve looked at:

(1) What information is confidential and is protected from disclosure

(2) Who is owed confidentiality and what is required to waive the protections

(3) Who may be arrested for violations under section 6 (h) (4) of the law.

More on “who may violate?”

Paragraph (4) starts out “A person, including an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government,”

This paragraph targets government officials and employees. Both state and local.

Any person that is an official or employee of government could attempt to claim immunity of some sort in a defense to this criminal charge.

While not discussed in the law itself, immunity from this section must be considered.

A judge might be protected from this criminal law by immunity for actions taken in a court of law. The immunity protections for the prosecuting attorney would be less that provided to the judge. The court clerk would have less protection than the pa and so on down the list.

The further that employee or official is removed from the judge, the less likely that the person would be successful in claiming immunities.

It is difficult to claim immunity from a law which targets that person.

The officer on the street would most likely not succeed in claiming immunity.

The clerk behind the desk at city hall would be even less protected.

Local governments are currently attempting to force patients and caregivers to register with those local units of government. The MDCH would never release the same information to such units of government.

Such local laws are an attempt to make an “end run” around the confidentiality section of our law. The local governments can not get the information directly from the MDCH. They are now attempting to gain the exact same information from the persons that are supposed to be protected.

Disclosure

What is forbidden disclosure?

Who may not disclose?

What may not be disclosed?

The criminal section (4) states that:

A person, including an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor,

“in violation of this act” ..

There are two ways that this may be viewed.

(1) Disclosure in ways that are forbidden by the act.

(2) Disclosure in any way that is not allowed within the act.

Again, the MDCH has chosen to adapt the second, more conservative view.

It is not required that the disclosure be a public disclosure to trigger this section of law.

One single person can disclose something to another single person. It is not required for something to be published to have been disclosed.

Many would claim that disclosure could not take place within a department as long as the information remained within that department.

There is no provision in our mmj law to allow any intra office transmission of confidential information with the single exception of within the MDCH in the normal performance of their duties.

Each person working with this information inside of a local unit of government could possibly commit a crime when they perform their normal duties. Such as data entry into a local computer file that can be accessed by other persons.

Any local laws that are written to require registration of patients and caregivers have some sort of enforcement procedure. This would require that a local employee disclose confidential information to some sort of enforcement person. Which, in the end, would involve law enforcement.

The Michigan State Police have requested access to the information contained within the MDCH file. Every time such a request has been made, the MDCH has refused to allow access.

No single person has a greater ability to disclose this information than the MDCH has. The MDCH can not and will not disclose the information to law enforcement or local governments.

Forcing persons to violate confidentiality, by registering, might raise the issue to Federal levels.

42:USC 1985 Civil rights violation by someone acting under color of law.

No local law can force a person to either commit a state level crime or waive state given rights of protection.

Furthermore, since the MDCH views each person listed within a patients records as having their own, separate, protections, the patient or caregiver would be forced to divulge information, about other persons, which they do not have the ability to waive confidentiality.

Medical Pot Users Fight Charges-Bob And Torrey ...

Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:02:04 +0000

Jennifer Chambers / The Detroit News
Lansing — An Oakland County couple certified to use medical marijuana under state law is asking the Michigan Supreme Court to dismiss felony drug charges against them.
Robert Redden and Torey Clark, who became certified under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, were charged with drug possession after police found 21 marijuana plants in a raid at their home in 2009.
Advertisement

Please note the very well stated quote by Robert Mullen " "All at the expense of otherwise well-intentioned and unwitting medical marijuana patients that are proceeding like proverbial lambs to the prosecutorial slaughter," Mullen wrote."

Prosecutors allege the couple possessed more than the allowable amount of plants and they did not keep the plants in an enclosed locked facility as required.
Their case received attention last month after a state appeals judge wrote a 30-page opinion urging state lawmakers to take action on the "inartfully drafted" law that he said clashes with other Michigan laws.
Judge Peter O'Connell, who agreed with the majority's opinion to reinstate drug possession charges against the couple, wrote in this opinion that until the state Supreme Court provides a final comprehensive interpretation of the act, it would be "prudent" for citizens to avoid all use of marijuana if they do not wish to risk violating state law.
"I again issue a stern warning to all: Please do not attempt to interpret this act on your own," O'Connell wrote in his appeal.
The couple's attorneys filed a formal appeal with the Supreme Court last week. In his plea to reverse the appeals court and dismiss the charges, attorney Robert Mullen said the Michigan judiciary must resolve interpretive issues that, according to Court of Appeals and district court judges, are "beleaguering" government officials in general and law enforcement officials "in particular."
"All at the expense of otherwise well-intentioned and unwitting medical marijuana patients that are proceeding like proverbial lambs to the prosecutorial slaughter," Mullen wrote.
Voters approved the use of marijuana for medical purposes in a citizen-initiated petition placed on the 2008 ballot.
Lawyers for Clark and Redden provided documents showing the couple each obtained a recommendation from a state-licensed physician, which stated each was qualified to use marijuana for medical purposes under the act. They did not receive state-issued ID cards until after the raid. Madison Heights Police used a battering ram to knock down their front door.
In August, Oakland County authorities seized medical records and marijuana at dispensaries in Ferndale and Waterford Township. Criminal cases against more than a dozen defendants are moving through the courts.
Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard and Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper have said that dispensaries are illegal under Michigan law.

Michael A. Komorn
Attorney and Counselor
Law Office of Michael A. Komorn
3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800
Southfield, MI 48075
800-656-3557 (Toll Free)
248-351-2200 (Office)
248-357-2550 (Phone)
248-351-2211 (Fax)

Email: michael@komornlaw.com
Website: www.komornlaw.com

Check out our Radio show:
http://www.blogtalkr...lanetgreentrees
NEW CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626
Live Every Wednesday 8-9:30 p.m.
PLANET GREENTREES
w/ Attorney Michael Komorn

The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

If you have a medical marihuana question or comment, please email them to me, or leave them on the forum for the MMMA, and I will try to answer them live on the air.

http://www.blogtalkr...lanetgreentrees
PLANET GREENTREES Call-in Number: (347) 326-9626
Call-in Number: (347) 326-9626

7411 Probation Status And "expungements"

Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:22:35 +0000

I've noticed that there are A LOT of people that are either being offered or have accepted plea agreements in court for deferred status also known as 7411 status. Many courts also refer to this as "drug diversion" or delayed status, or also differment. It also seems like there can be some misunderstanding as to what this means.

When a person accepts a deferred status either through the acts of 7411, 771.1, or HYTA they are being placed on probation (may not be reporting type) and told that if they complete all terms and conditions the court places on that individual, the case will be DISMISSED and becomes NON-PUBLIC status. In the example of 771.1 status the case is "NOLLE PROSEQUI" and the case remains public record and is closed.

All of these deferrments that I have mentioned are not an expungement. An expungement is when you go to the court and ask that your closed case record be basically erased from existance. There is a time frame that has to happen on how many years the case must remain closed and the court has to be petitioned or asked.

If you successfully complete ALL of your terms of probation under 7411 status or HYTA the case is dismissed and the case becomes NON-PUBLIC. That means that anyone off the street does not have access to your criminal case or case information. It means that the information is not decemenated by LEIN to anyone that does not have access to the NON-PUBLIC status cases. Keep in mind that LEO, the courts, Federal LEO, Immigration, and many others have full access to LEIN and will have access to your case information. Some employment background checks would also have that access for example if you were screened by the Department of Corruption or if you were having to have a background check for some secure federal jobs. I can't remember all of the individuals that have access to non-public info but there are quite a few.

A deferrment is an excellent opportunity if you need it but there are going to be potential hurdles that could come up. Believe me a prosecutor looking to get you to plead to a case won't always explain all of this. Hopefully you have an attorney that will!

7411 status, HYTA, and 771.1 are the common deferred sentences for drug crimes but there are also other types of deferrments for other types of crimes. Best place to research this is at http://courts.michig...fc/prb_sec6.pdf

Affirmative Defense Argument Supported By The P...

Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:43:10 +0000

This Power Point presentation ( http://www.mml.org/p...rihuana-ppt.pdf ) was prepared by the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan's Kenneth Stecker and the Michigan Department of Community Health's Celeste Clarkson.

The medical marijuana affirmative defense is discussed in pages 22-27. Page 27, entitled, "Standard for the Affirmative Defense," says that: "The affirmative defense, by contrast to the Registry ID Card Program, requires no advance action or expense, no formalities, and its scope is quite broad."

In another report by the PAAM's Kenneth Stecker, ( http://www.mcrud.org...y%20Mode%5D.pdf ) he details the following "Concerns About the Act" on page 12.

* Potential conflict with MCLA 257.625(8);
* Does not specify how patients and caregivers would acquire Marihuana for Michigan Medical Marihuana Act medical purposes;
* The affirmative defense section applies to “patients” rather than just to “qualifying patients.”

Sal Agro Medical Marijuana Patient Raided Dies ...

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:26:45 +0000

I would first like to extend the condolences of the entire MMMA Family to the Agro's. I am sorry that Sal's last days were filled with terror, he suffered at the hands of a police force he described as Gestapo like. I would request at this time that the police return the money that was stolen from the family to help with Sal's final expenses. This is what happens when you abuse the chronically ill. The everyday stress of fighting our diseases is as much as we can stand. It doesn't take much to push us over that fine line. There is no undoing these inhumane acts of those police officers. I hope that when they look at themselves in the mirror they do some soul searching, and follow only lawful orders. The abuse of the sick is an intolerable situation. The MMMA will fight this tyranny and support patients rights with every single resource we have. God Bless You Sal! I never got to meet you personally, but liked you the first time I saw you on your video. BB

http://www.theoaklan...53944836901.txt

Sal Agro looks at the empty pots in the basement of his Orion Township, that he used to grow marijuana. Sheriff's deputies raided his home Wednesday night and took under 20 plants and confiscated $11,000 in cash that he said he had to purchase a new car. The Oakland Press/TIM THOMPSON

Sal Agro, the Lake Orion man who spoke out about police last week after an Aug. 25 medical marijuana raid at him home, died Thursday.

His death was caused by a heart attack, family members said. He had recently had hip surgery. He was 67.

After the raids, Agro, a retired GM worker and beloved Lake Orion sports coach, walked through areas of his home to show where police had torn apart beds and clothing, looking for marijuana, he said.

Several marijuana plants he had been growing in a basement bedroom had been torn out and confiscated by police.

“They had ski masks on and acted like the Gestapo,” he had said.

Agro said his sons Nick and Tony Agro ran the Clinical Relief, at 362 Hilton, in Ferndale. His wife, Barb, was interviewed at the clinic.

Sal Agro said both he and his wife had state-issued cards that allow them to have marijuana plants.

The Agros’ son Tony was arrested in Ferndale during the raid.

Sal Agro said his family had run the Ferndale clinic professionally and had invited government officials to tour the operation.

“They said our clinic is the benchmark,” he said Aug. 26.

Cecelia Vellucci of Lake Orion said she knew Agro for nearly 40 years.

“He was very caring for children,” she said. “He was always there first to guide and train them.”

Vellucci said her five sons went to school with the Agros’ sons.

“He was very friendly, kidding and joking,” she said. “He wasn’t afraid to speak up.”

A Facebook posting at 2:45 p.m. Thursday spoke about Agro’s sports background.

“Lake Orion suffered a devastating loss this early afternoon. Our hearts go out the Agro family and the passing of Sal Agro after complications following his recent hip replacement surgery. RIP Coach!”

Jennifer Chapdelaine wrote, “Sal was the best coach I’ve ever had and my favorite! He will be missed greatly!”

John F. Carson wrote, “Maril and I have suffered a great loss. Sal was both friend and family. We will miss you, Sal. Our loss is God’s gift ... heaven will never be the same.”

Mr. Agro was born on Jan. 30, 1943 in Buffalo, N.Y. to Carmela and Michael Agro. He was in the U.S. Air Force for four years, his family said, and moved to Michigan in the mid-1960s because he was stationed at Selfridge Air Force Base in Harrison Township. He married Barbara Weaver in 1965. The couple has three children, Michael (Cherie) of Colorado, Anthony (Dianne) of Troy and Nicholas (Jennifer) of Lake Orion. He is also survived by his grandchildren Kara, Amber, Joseph, AnnaGrace, Carson, Addison, and many nieces and nephews.

Visitation will be at Sparks Griffin Funeral Home in Lake Orion and details of services are pending.

Dispensary(S) Raided

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 22:57:53 +0000

We have no choice but to protest the abuse of patients. Under no circumstances is it ok to abuse patients, seize their property or to seize patients health information. These acts are illegal. We are a country of laws. Law enforcement is held to a higher standard than citizens. That has always been the case.

What is court day in Oakland County?

U.s. Police Turn To Marijuana Busts For Cash

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:15:27 +0000

Strapped U.S. Police Turn to Marijuana Busts for Cash
Published July 03, 2010 | NewsCore

Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko, his budget under pressure in a weak economy, has laid off staff, reduced patrols and even released jail inmates. But there's one mission on which he's spending more than in recent years: pot busts, The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday.

The reason is simple: If the California lawman steps up his pursuit of marijuana growers, his department is eligible for roughly half a million dollars a year in federal anti-drug funding, helping save some jobs. The majority of the funding would have to be used to fight pot. Marijuana may not be the county's most pressing crime problem, the sheriff says, but "it's where the money is."

Washington has long allocated funds to help localities fight crime, influencing their priorities in the process. Today's local budget squeezes are enhancing this effect, and the result is particularly striking in California, where many residents take a benign view of pot but federal dollars help keep law-enforcement focused on it.

To make sure his office gets the federal funds, Bosenko since last year has spent about $340,000 of his department's shrinking resources, more than in past years, on a team that tramps through the woods looking for pot farms. Though the squad is mostly U.S.-funded, the federal grants don't cover some of its needs, such as a team chief and certain equipment. So, Bosenko has to pay for those out of his regular budget.

He doesn't doubt the value of pursuing pot farming, which he says is often the work of sophisticated Mexican gangs and leads to other crimes like assault. But other infractions, like drunken driving and robbery, may have a bigger direct impact on local residents than pot growing, he says.

The pot money is "$340,000 I could use somewhere else in my organization," he says. "That could fund three officers' salaries and benefits, and we could have them out on our streets doing patrol." His overall budget this year is about $35 million.

The U.S. Justice Department is spending nearly $3.6 billion this year to augment budgets of state and local law enforcement agencies. In addition, the federal government last year set aside close to $4 billion of the economic stimulus package for law enforcement grants for state and local agencies. The White House also is spending about $239 million this year to fund local drug trafficking task forces.

Much of the federal money helps local agencies go after sophisticated criminal gangs and hard drugs like methamphetamine. Even staunch supporters of legal pot don't dispute the value of that http://www.foxnews.c...test=latestnews

Click here for more on this story from The Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.co...2612331758.html

The wall street journal article is definitely worth reading as well it elaborates on this article.