What Do You Say, DEA?

On April 29, 2008 representative John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to DEA administrator Michele Leonhart asking a number of questions about the DEA’s raids of California medical marijuana dispensaries and threats directed against their owners.

Conyers’ questions included:

• Is asset forfeiture an appropriate tactic to use against the sick and their caregivers?
  
• Is the DEA making the best use of its limited resources by raiding medical dispensaries when violent drug cartels in Mexico and South America are out of control?
  
• How are the DEA’s raids impacting the state of California’s ability to collect taxes?
  
• What role, if any, does recent research on the medicinal value of marijuana play in the DEA’s decision to target medical marijuana users and dispensaries?
  
• Would the DEA agree to forming an outside commission to review policy and make recommendations to help bring federal and state laws into agreement?
  
• Conyers also asked for an accounting of the costs and legal status of 60 specific cases resulting from the recent raids of California dispensaries (a list of those raids is attached to the letter). 

The deadline for Leonhart's response was July 1. So what happened? Did Leonhart actually respond to Conyer's questions? If so, I have not been able to find anything about it. If you know about a DEA response, please post a comment and let me know where I can find the response.

My guess is that Conyer’s request for information has been and will be ignored. And why not? The DEA does not answer to Congress. They are under the direction of the attorney general who answers only to the president. There are no checks and balances for any of those involved with the classification of drugs or the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act. That’s why the DEA is able to get away with such deplorable behavior in the name of enforcing the law. Only in America.