Arizona, State of et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 38

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Dennis K Burke, Eric Himpton Holder, Jr, United States Department of Justice, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Risner, Scott)

Exhibit 1

u.s. Department of Justice
Office of the Deputy Attorney General

Mbshington. D.C. 20530

June 29, 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR UNITED STAT
FROM:

James M. Cole
Deputy Attorn

SUBJECT:

Guidance Regarding the Ogden Memo in Jurisdictions
Seeking to Authorize Marijuana for Medical Use

Over the last several months some of you have requested the Department's assistance in
responding to inquiries from State and local governments seeking guidance about the
Department's position on enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in jurisdictions
that have under consideration, or have implemented, legislation that would sanction and regulate
the commercial cultivation and distribution of marijuana purportedly for medical use. Some of
these jurisdictions have considered approving the cultivation of large quantities of marijuana, or
broadening the regulation and taxation of the substance. You may have seen letters responding
to these inquiries by several United States Attorneys. Those letters are entirely consistent with
the October 2009 memorandum issued by Deputy Attorney General David Ogden to federal
prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana (the
"Ogden Memo").
The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances
Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal
distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant source of revenue
to large scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. The Ogden Memorandum provides
guidance to you in deploying your resources to enforce the CSA as part of the exercise of the
broad discretion you are given to address federal criminal matters within your districts.
A number of states have enacted some form of legislation relating to the medical use of
marijuana. Accordingly, the Ogden Memo reiterated to you that prosecution of significant
traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, remains a core priority, but advised that it is
likely not an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on individuals with
cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen
consistent with applicable state law, or their caregivers. The term "caregiver" as used in the
memorandum meant just that: individuals providing care to individuals with cancer or other
serious illnesses, not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana.
The Department's view of the efficient use of limited federal resources as articulated in
the Ogden Memorandum has not changed. There has, however, been an increase in the scope of

Memorandum for United States Attorneys
Subject: Guidance Regarding the Ogden Memo in Jurisdictions
Seeking to Authorize Marijuana for Medical Use

Page 2

commercial cultivation, sale, distribution and use of marijuana for purported medical purposes.
For example, within the past 12 months, several jurisdictions have considered or enacted
legislation to authorize multiple large-scale, privately-operated industrial marijuana cultivation
centers. Some of these planned facilities have revenue projections of millions of dollars based
on the planned cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants.
The Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal
enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state
law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those
who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act,
regardless of state law. Consistent with resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise
in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential
prosecution. State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of
federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage
in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money
laundering statutes and other federal financial laws.
The Department of Justice is tasked with enforcing existing federal criminal laws in all
states, and enforcement of the CSA has long been and remains a core priority.
cc: Lanny A. Breuer
Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division
B. Todd Jones

United States Attorney

District of Minnesota

Chair, AGAC

Michele M. Leonhart
Administrator
Drug Enforcement Administration
H. Marshall Jarrett

Director

Executive Office for United States Attorneys

Kevin L. Perkins
Assistant Director
Criminal Investigative Division
Federal Bureau of Investigations