Niteshift

"who gave the DEA the right to issue the afformentioned licences?"

Congress. They are the same people who issue your doctor a DEA license to prescribe or dispense medicine.

"who may the DEA give them to (LEOs obviously, what about intelligence services or federal law enforcement <i.e. the NIS, NSA, FBI or IA/Marshalls> or possibly congressmen's sons, etc... what does the law allow for and what kind of corruption do you see) "

Of course Federal LE is eligible. And of course congressmen's sons are not.

Other than LE, the licenses are issued to doctors, pharmacists, manufacturers, researchers. The licenses can be broad or specific. For example, if you are a researcher and you need cocaine for an experiment, you can apply. You will have to submit a complete research plan and outline how you will ensure the drug is not misused as well as how it will be secured. You will then be allowed to purchase etc. a certain amount (based on the research plan).

What kind of corruption? Almost none. Other than the fact that it is very tightly regulated and, for non-LE agencies, expensive, it comes with the price that you have opened the door to the DEA to be very involved in your business. They can come in at any time and inspect, ensuring you are doing what you said you are. And they are very unpleasent if you aren't playing by the rules.

"where does this license allow you to purchase from? Do you have to pay import fees from a green country or right off the street? "

From drug companies. Off the street would be ridiculous, since I can make that buy without a license, then make the arrest. Some drug companies and research facilities grow marijuana for research purposes. It can be purchased from them.

"do you have to bust the dealer after the purchase? It may no longer be a crime for the license bearer to purchase it, but it is still a crime almost everywhere in the USA to sell it. "

Apparently, you're not getting it. This is a LEGAL. I'm not talking about going to the corner and buying an ounce from a dealer. I don't need a license to do that. The law says that is my job.

The license is so that we can purchase the drugs from a licensed company, like Dow or Mereck or Abbot Labs. They are licensed to make and sell it to other licensed persons, like doctors, hospitals and cops with DEA licenses.

"and finally, what are the exact liberties granted by that license? ammounts of herb, time when it must be destroyed, announcing purchase to a superior, etc... "

It is tightly regulated and takes 2 pages to explain.

This is not something everyone can get. It is highly regulated and completely legal.

SonOfAGlitch

I "got it" after you answered my question regarding where you would buy the herb, and understood that my second question on that line was redundant, what I want to know now is:

Does the dea issue the seller/cultivator licenses as well and

Does the seller/cultivator license cost a lot of money or is it simply expensive in the red tape dept.?

All this is very fascinating to me, it seems the DEA cultivates its own drug economy. They could save the law enforcement agencies loads of dough if the license simply allowed them to buy herb from a coffee shop like Willie wortel and be inspected for its use as opposed to them attempting (and I imagine being rather successful at) regulating this legal drug trade...

the way I see it is this:
the DEA sees a legitimate need for LEAs and research/pharmaceutical companies to have access to <drug of choice>. we'll use weed for the example.

Seeing this need the DEA decides that they can let certain responsible companies cultivate the herb as long as it's not misused... instead of just giving them the license, they charge for it. am I right?

Naturally they won't give the law enforcement agencies the right to cultivate marijuana, too much opportunity for abuse, so they issue licenses for some agencies to purchase it...but not for free.

plus all the taxes, duties and the leeway it gives them to search your facilities, it looks like they get everyone coming and going!

Sigh

Niteshift

"Does the dea issue the seller/cultivator licenses"

They license manufacturers and distributors.

"Does the seller/cultivator license cost a lot of money or is it simply expensive in the red tape dept.?"

Both. As I said before, it is very tightly regulated and not that simple to get.

"They could save the law enforcement agencies loads of dough if the license simply allowed them to buy herb from a coffee shop like Willie wortel "

The license for a law enforcement agency is FREE. No cost, just regulated.

"the DEA sees a legitimate need for LEAs and research/pharmaceutical companies to have access to <drug of choice>. "

The need for LE is to use it to train dogs to find it.

"instead of just giving them the license, they charge for it. am I right? "

I can't think of any government license that is free. You paid for your drivers license, right?

"Naturally they won't give the law enforcement agencies the right to cultivate marijuana, too much opportunity for abuse"

That's not why. It's much less sinister than that..we're cops, not farmers. If we were going to grow something, it would be something useful to us, like coffee.

"so they issue licenses for some agencies to purchase it...but not for free. "

No. The license for LE is FREE.

"plus all the taxes, duties"

As a governmental entity, we are tax exempt.

So, as you can see, you're theory holds little water.

willy

Could you give me a little more info on US v. Stone?

I couldn't find anything on the LII web site and I don't remember the case.

Thanks

Slate

Willy,
I'm not that computer savvy so I'm not sure if there is a better way to direct to the following, but here it is.

www.findlaw.com.

In the search category type in "United States v Stone" and utilize the "Lawcrawler"

Scroll down to "United States Court of Appeals, eleventh circut (1998)."

Docket #96-3135

Hope this helps.

Niteshift

Here's a few more decisions that pertain to dogs and the airport:

United States v Bronstein (521 F. 2d 459 (1975) Second Circuit
Drug detecting police dog’s sniffing, nipping and biting at defendant’s luggage at a public airline terminal was not a search. There can be no reasonable expectation of privacy when one transports baggage by plane.

United States v Klein (626 F. 2d 22 (1980) Seventh Circuit
Where a dog trained in drug detection alerted to suitcases at an airport, that provided probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant.
The use of a dog trained in drug detection to sniff inanimate objects for contraband, does not constitute a search.

United States v Goldstein (635 F. 2d 356 (1981) Fifth Circuit
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy to the airspace surrounding luggage. Drug agents’ use of a dog’s trained olfactory sense to sniff the exterior of suitcases, was not a search.

United States v Johnson (660 F. 2d 21 (1981) Second Circuit
Use of a dog specially trained to detect the odor of controlled substances does not constitute a search or seizure.

United States v Waltzer (682 F. 2d 370 (1982) Second Circuit
Canine sniffing is neither a "search" or a "seizure."

United States v McCranie (703 F. 2d 1213 (1983) Tenth Circuit
Use of a sniffing dog is not a search or seizure.

United States v Lewis (708 F. 2d 1078 (1983) Sixth Circuit
Use of a trained dog to detect odors emanating from defendant’s luggage did not constitute a search.

United States v Brown (884 F. 2d 1309 (1989) Ninth Circuit
Brief detention of airline passenger’s luggage, after it had been checked, but before it was delivered to cargo hold, did not constitute a seizure.

United States v De Los Santos Ferrer (999 F. 2d 7 (1993) First Circuit
Dog sniff of luggage, which was not a search, and alert by certified narcotics detecting dog, provided probable cause to detain and ample incentive to question holder of claim checks for luggage.

United States v Thomas (87 F. 3d 909 (1996) Seventh Circuit
After police officer’s trained narcotics dog reacted positively to defendant’s suitcase for narcotics, officer had probable cause to obtain search warrant.


Again, these are just decisions specificly ON TOPIC, airposts and drug dogs.

There are many, many more regarding dogs with other locations and vehicles.

SonOfAGlitch

I didn't tell you my theory, but here it is: The DEA makes money off selling these licenses.

you argued for me (sorry, but i'm a fan of the socratic method): you said that (a) the sales/cultivation license costs money. Lots of money. To a corporation or lab, lots of money is almost always in the six digits.

that's the direct way, right to the source of the cash. What a LEA could spare compared to that is small tater tots.

also (b) you guys pay for the weed, the labs don't donate it, so there goes your money to them (that way the dea can charge for the licenses the labs need... they both profit) and since the LABS aren't gov't entities they pay taxes which are astronomical on a controlled substance, i'm sure.

So, as you see, you gave my theory it's water

Niteshift

You're not paying close attention SOG:

"The DEA makes money off selling these licenses."

Making money is a relative term. They don't turn a profit. Your state charges you for a drivers license. That money goes to pay for the materials and equipment needed to give you the license, to pay the person who issues it and gives you the test and other costs associated with you getting it. To imply that it is profitable (ie. that they make more than it costs them) is wrong.

" you said that (a) the sales/cultivation license costs money. Lots of money. To a corporation or lab, lots of money is almost always in the six digits. "

Did I say 6 figure? No, you made that assumption. And you assumed that I meant a lot of money in terms of their budgets.........I didn't. I meant a lot of money in terms of a private person seeking a license.

"you guys pay for the weed, the labs don't donate it, so there goes your money to them"

Now you're really not paying attention. Here is what I said earlier: Usually, if the drugs are common enough, like coke and pot, we have a judge order the transfer from evidence that is set for destruction, rather than buying it.

We don't have to buy pot or coke, we have more of it than we know what to do with already. It takes me 10 minutes to type the judicial order that makes the transfer from evidence 100% legal. We have never needed to buy meth either.

"they pay taxes which are astronomical on a controlled substance, i'm sure. "

Or more accurately, you guess.

"So, as you see, you gave my theory it's water"

And it poured through the holes in your theory like a seive.

SonOfAGlitch

You said lots of money, not me. You never said, "Lots for a private user," because we were not talking about private users.

So lots of money certainly must mean either a large amount to YOU (are you a personal user?) or lots to the entity purchasing it. RIGHT?

You can order a transfer from evidence, yes, i paid close attention to that as it's the most interesting part of the whole thing. I'll explain why it interests me very soon if this conversation continues along the path i anticipate.

meth, coke, etc, are off topic and do not interest me in the least.

now for the profit end of the deal. The DEA would never charge less than cost for anything, whatever they charge it turns them some kind of a profit. Whether it's a penny or a mint, they make money from it at the expense of whomever.

They would have to or it would never be legal, think about it, who supplies the monies and budget appropriations to the DEA? Yeah, that's right, the executive branch of the government. Who Grants the DEA new powers of license, enforcement, etc? Yuh huh, same folks...

... If it were up to the DEA they'd probably give the licenses away for the cost of upkeep but somewhere along the way johnny lawmaker realised the only way to get such a radical idea legal was to make it appeal to the folks on capitol hill.

SOOOooooo, "We can make enough money for this project to support itself," or something similar wails the DEA and gets it approved.

more than likely they were eager as anything to get it approved...can you imagine the lobby cash being fanned around by the labs over an issue like that? not to mention pressure from groups like NORML, commUnity, etc.

BTW, water flows, not sieves...

Niteshift

This is pointless. You're trying to make some incorrect point, and in my opinion, not doing a good job of it.

I KNOW what the licensing situation is. You are GUESSING and making ASSUMPTIONS. You're too busy trying to find a loophole, that you're actually missing what I was saying.

In any case, I'm done with this discussion.

"BTW, water flows, not sieves..."

No kidding, that's why I said it poured through your theory, like a sieve. Now I have to explain that too? Your theory is like a sieve. It has holes in it. The "water" you claim my explaination gave, is flowing through those holes.

I could draw a picture if you like.

It's been real.