SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
January, 04 2013, 11:05am EDT
Contact:
ASA Media Spokesperson Kris Hermes 510-681-6361
Obama Administration Throwing Medical Marijuana Patients Into Federal Prison at Unprecedented Rate
This month will see a number of patients sentenced, sent to prison despite compliance with state medical marijuana laws
WASHINGTON
Fallout from the Obama Administration's aggressive federal enforcement in medical marijuana states has reached a fever pitch this month with three people being sentenced, two others due to surrender to federal authorities to serve out sentences of up to five years in prison, and one federal trial in Montana currently scheduled for January 14th. Two of the three people being sentenced in the coming month -- Montana cultivator Chris Williams and Los Angeles-area dispensary operator Aaron Sandusky -- face five and ten years to life, respectively.
"The number of sick patients being locked up by the Obama Administration is unprecedented and deplorable," said Kris Hermes, spokesperson for Americans for Safe Access, the country's leading medical marijuana advocacy organization. "Aggressive enforcement is an unacceptable means of addressing medical marijuana as a public health issue," continued Hermes. "The Obama Administration is lying to the American people when it says it's not targeting individual patients and these cases are clear evidence of that." Montana patient cultivator Richard Flor died in August while serving out a 5-year prison sentence.
Five cultivators claiming to be in compliance with Michigan's medical marijuana law were sentenced in October. Two of the cultivators -- Jaycob Montague and Jeremy Duval -- are already serving their prison terms of 18 months and 5 years, respectively, and two others -- John Marcinkewciz and Shelley Waldron -- are scheduled to surrender to federal authorities on January 8th and 10th, respectively. Waldron will be imprisoned for 18 months and Marcinkewciz for 5 years. The fifth cultivator, Jerry Duval (Jeremy's father), was sentenced to 10 years, but has not yet been given a surrender date.
More than a dozen people were indicted after federal agents conducted raids on state compliant medical marijuana businesses throughout Montana in March 2011. Only one, Chris Williams, went to trial and, like all other medical marijuana defendants who are tried in federal court, was denied a defense and swiftly convicted. While facing more than 80 years of mandatory minimum sentencing, Williams accepted a rare post-conviction plea deal that reduced his charges and possible sentence to 5 years to life in exchange for his promise not to appeal his conviction. Williams, who is scheduled to be sentenced on February 1st, worked at Montana Cannabis with Chris Lindsey, another indicted cultivator. Lindsey, who testified against Williams at his trial, is expected to be sentenced today. Medical marijuana cultivator Jason Washington has one of the last unresolved federal cases in Montana. Washington is currently scheduled to go to trial on January 14th.
Aaron Sandusky operated G3 Holistic in Upland, California when he was federally indicted in June. Though Sandusky was arrested with several others, he was the only one who took his case to trial. In October, Sandusky was denied a defense in federal court and convicted at trial. He is scheduled to be sentenced on January 7th to a minimum of 10 years to life.
Far surpassing his predecessor George W. Bush, President Obama has conducted more than 200 SWAT-style raids on state-compliant medical marijuana businesses and has indicted more than 80 people since he took office. "How many medical marijuana patients is President Obama going to imprison before he considers other, more humane options," said Hermes. "The president must answer for why he's going against his earlier pledges by spending Justice Department funds in this way, especially at a time of fiscal crisis."
Americans for Safe Access is the nation's largest organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens promoting safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research.
LATEST NEWS
'Instead of Doing TikTok Videos, She Should Be Serving Her Constituents,' Johnson Says While Refusing to Swear In Grijalva
One congresswoman pointed out that "she does not have access to an official website for constituents to receive updates, an office phone number for constituents to call, or a congressional email."
Oct 20, 2025
Congressional Democrats were among the critics taking aim at US Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on Monday for the Louisiana Republican's "genuinely insane" remarks on his refusal to swear in Democratic Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva of Arizona.
Twenty days into a federal government shutdown that resulted from Republicans' fight for healthcare cuts set to negatively impact tens of millions of Americans, Johnson said he would administer the oath of office to Grijalva, "I hope, on the first day we come back."
"Instead of doing TikTok videos, she should be serving her constituents," Johnson added. "She could be taking their calls. She could be directing them, trying to help them through the crisis that the Democrats have created by shutting down the government."
Another Democrat elected to represent Arizonans, Congressman Greg Stanton, fired back at the speaker: "How pathetic. Mike Johnson is now blaming Adelita Grijalva for not doing her job. Quit taking orders from Trump and swear her in now."
Grijalva won the special election for her late father's seat last month, pre-shutdown. Johnson could have swiftly administered the oath of office, and despite the shutdown, he can still do so. He has denied that he has intentionally delayed swearing her in to push off a vote on releasing files about deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a former friend of President Donald Trump—but many critics don't believe him.
Responding to the speaker on Monday, Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said: "Republicans refuse to swear in an elected member of Congress. Why? They are covering up the Epstein files."
As Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes threatens legal action over the delay—with a filing expected this week—Grijalva, Democratic lawmakers, and others have used various social media platforms to call out Johnson.
In one such video, posted online last week, Grijalva speaks with Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), the newest member of the House, about how he was sworn in just a day after winning his special election, like two of his GOP colleagues.
As viewers of Grijalva's videos know, she finally got access to her office on Capitol Hill last week, but her ability to functionally serve constituents remains limited.
Pointing to similar comments that the House speaker made last week on CNN, Congresswoman Kelly Morrison (D-Minn.) explained Monday: "Unlike Mike Johnson, I actually spoke to Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva this week. She does not have access to an official website for constituents to receive updates, an office phone number for constituents to call, or a congressional email to receive news like the rest of Congress. Why? Because until Johnson swears her in, she is not a member of Congress."
Podcaster and writer Matthew Sitman is among those highlighting how this is bigger than Grijalva. He said: "I really don't think it's possible to make a big enough deal of this. If it's accepted that this quisling has absolute, unilateral power to decide when, or even if, to swear in duly elected representatives, they will further abuse that power—why not refuse other Democrats?"
Writer Nick Field similarly wondered, "So why do we think Donald Trump and Mike Johnson will accept the results and seat new House members if they lose the majority in next year's midterms?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Betrayal': Ranchers Slam Trump Plan to Buy Beef From Argentina With US Tax Dollars
"After crashing the soybean market and gifting Argentina our largest export buyer, he's now poised to do the same to the cattle market," said an Illinois cattle producer.
Oct 20, 2025
US ranchers and industry groups are responding critically to President Donald Trump's proposal that the United States "would buy some beef from Argentina," in a bid to "bring our beef prices down," while pursuing an up to $40 billion bailout for the South American country.
Trump made the suggestion to reporters on Air Force One Sunday, according to the Associated Press. A few days earlier, he'd said that a deal to cut the price of beef was "gonna be coming down pretty soon." The AP noted various reasons for "stubbornly high" US prices, including drought and reduced imports from Mexico.
"President Trump's plan to buy beef from Argentina is a betrayal of the American rancher," Christian Lovell, an Illinois cattle producer and senior director of programs at the organization Farm Action, said in a Monday statement. "Those of us who raise cattle have finally started to see what profit looks like after facing years of high input costs and market manipulation by the meatpacking monopoly."
"After crashing the soybean market and gifting Argentina our largest export buyer, he's now poised to do the same to the cattle market," he continued, referring to one of the impacts of Trump's tariff war. "Importing Argentinian beef would send US cattle prices plummeting—and with the meatpacking industry as consolidated as it is, consumers may not see lower beef prices either. Washington should be focused on fixing our broken cattle market, not rewarding foreign competitors."
"Trump has done more in the past month to help Argentina than he has to help the American people."
"With these actions, President Trump risks acting more like the president of Argentina than president of the United States," Lovell declared. The US leader is a key ally of the nation's actual president, Javier Milei, whose austerity agenda has created the need for a massive bailout from Washington, DC.
Farm Action's proposed fix for the US is to tackle the "structurally flawed system" with three steps: "Reinstate Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL) for beef and pork, restore competitive markets by enforcing antitrust laws, and rebuild the US cow herd to achieve national self-reliance in beef production."
The group was far from alone in criticizing Trump's weekend remarks and offering alternative solutions to reduce US prices.
"We appreciate President Trump's interest in addressing the US beef market, which has been producing all-time record-high consumer beef prices," said Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA, the nation's largest cattle association, in a statement. "We urge the president to address the fundamental problems in the beef market, not just its symptom."
"The symptom is that the US has shrunk its beef cow herd to such a low level that it can no longer produce enough beef to satisfy domestic demand," he continued. "But the fundamental problem is that decades of failed trade policies have allowed cheap, undifferentiated imports to displace the domestic cow herd, driving hundreds of thousands of cattle farmers and ranchers and millions of domestic beef cows out of the domestic beef supply chain."
"In addition, the nation's beef packers and beef retailers have been allowed to concentrate to monopolistic levels, enabling them to interfere with competitive market forces," he asserted. "Attempting to lower domestic beef prices simply by inviting even more imports will both exacerbate and accelerate the ongoing dismantling of the domestic beef supply chain."
Instead of promoting US beef production, Trump now wants to establish a preferred position for Argentine beef in the US. Why, exactly? Is this what America First means?
[image or embed]
— Scott Horton (@robertscotthorton.bsky.social) October 20, 2025 at 2:23 PM
National Cattlemen's Beef Association CEO Colin Woodall said that "NCBA's family farmers and ranchers have numerous concerns with importing more Argentinian beef to lower prices for consumers. This plan only creates chaos at a critical time of the year for American cattle producers, while doing nothing to lower grocery store prices."
"Additionally, Argentina has a deeply unbalanced trade relationship with the US," Woodall noted. "In the past five years Argentina has sold more than $801 million of beef into the US market. By comparison, the US has sold just over $7 million worth of American beef to Argentina. Argentina also has a history of foot-and-mouth disease, which, if brought to the United States, could decimate our domestic livestock production."
Justin Tupper, president of the US Cattlemen's Association, highlighted the rising costs that ranchers are enduring.
"The cost of producing beef today is accurately represented in the consumer markets where it is sold," he said. "Ranchers are facing historic highs for feed, fuel, labor, and land—and those costs have risen far faster than beef prices on grocery shelves."
"When policymakers hint at intervention or suggest quick fixes, they can shake the market's foundation and directly impact the livelihoods of ranchers who depend on stable, transparent pricing," Tupper warned in the wake of the president's recent remarks. "Sudden price moves make it harder for independent producers to plan, invest, and keep their operations running."
"Efforts to support consumers must consider the economic realities on the ground and ensure the voices of independent ranchers lead the discussion," he added. "Market-driven prices—not mandates or panic interventions—have delivered value for generations. Let's focus on transparency, market integrity, and maintaining the conditions for sustainable rural economies."
Trump's signal that the US may buy more beef from Argentina comes as poll after poll shows that Americans—whose federal minimum wage hasn't increased in over 15 years—are stressed about the climbing costs of groceries. In addition to beef, shoppers are facing higher prices for staples such as coffee and eggs.
The Democratic National Committee also called out Trump's proposal on Monday, with Kendall Witmer, the DNC's rapid response director, charging that "Trump has done more in the past month to help Argentina than he has to help the American people, who are struggling to afford everything from rent to groceries."
"Because of Trump, farmers are on the brink of bankruptcy, and the government has been shut down for almost a month," Witmer added. "You would think that the so-called 'America First' president would be focused on reopening the government and saving millions of Americans from skyrocketing healthcare premiums—but Trump is showing his true colors. He only cares about helping himself and his friends, even at the expense of the American people. Let's be clear: MAGA now stands for Make Argentina Great Again."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Historic Mistake': Brazil Opens Up Amazon to New Oil Drilling Ahead of Global Climate Summit
"For us all to have a future, the oil industry can have no future," said one campaigner.
Oct 20, 2025
As climate leaders and policymakers arrive in Belém, Brazil next month, for the global climate summit that officials have pledged will stand apart from previous conferences due to its emphasis on "implementation," the country's government-run Petrobras firm will be drilling for oil just over 200 miles away in the Amazon, after the company was granted a license Monday.
Petrobras said it plans to begin drilling immediately in a project that will last about five months at the mouth of the Amazon River—the Foz de Amazonas region.
Despite President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's reputation as an international climate leader, he has claimed that oil revenue will help fund Brazil's transition to renewable energy, but Ilan Zugman, Latin America and Caribbean director at the grassroots climate action group 350.org, said Monday that in granting the license, the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) was "doubling down on a model that has already failed."
Petrobras is planning to drill an oil well at an offshore site, Block 59, that is 310 miles from the mouth of the Amazon.
IBAMA previously denied Petrobras the license, saying the company had not provided adequate plans for how it would protect wildlife in the case of an oil spill.
"The history of oil in Brazil shows this clearly: huge profits for a few, and inequality, destruction, and violence for local populations."
In September, the agency approved a pre-operational environmental assessment and said a new "fauna simulation" would take place after the license was issued, allowed Petrobras to prove after obtaining permission for drilling that it would protect wildlife.
The Amazon region is home to about 10% of the planet's wildlife, and climate advocates have raised alarm that the river's currents would swiftly bring the damage from an oil spill straight to the habitats of many animals and plants.
Brazilian NGO the Climate Observatory said the approval of the license "sabotages" the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30), which World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General Celeste Sauro said recently "aspires to be a turning point, a moment when the world shifts from ambition to implementation."
Last year was the first year to exceed 1.5°C above average preindustrial temperatures, and the previous 10 years have been the warmest on record. Scientists and the International Energy Agency have warned that no new oil or other fossil fuel projects have a place on a pathway to reaching net-zero global carbon emissions by 2050.
“The decision is disastrous from an environmental, climate, and sociobiodiversity perspective," said the Climate Observatory.
The group told The Guardian that civil society organizations would be taking the Brazilian government to court over the license, saying its approval was rife with "illegalities and technical flaws."
Despite IBAMA's approval, an opinion signed by 29 staff members at the agency in February said they recommended denying the license due to the risk of “massive biodiversity loss in a highly sensitive marine ecosystem."
Zugman called the decision a "historic mistake."
"The history of oil in Brazil shows this clearly: huge profits for a few, and inequality, destruction, and violence for local populations," said Zugman. "Brazil must take real climate leadership and break the cycle of extraction that has led us to the current climate crisis. We urgently need a just energy transition plan, based on renewables, that respects Indigenous, quilombola, and riverside peoples and guarantees them a leading role in decisions about climate and energy—including at COP30."
Earlier this year, Indigenous leaders representing dozens of Amazon ethnicities and tribes signed a declaration demanding that officials at COP30 "nullify oil blocks that have not had the consent of Indigenous people," "halt investment in new oil infrastructure," and create phase-out plans for oil and gas operations.
Nick Young, co-head of story and communications at Greenpeace International, called IBAMA's decision "disastrous."
"A spill here would be catastrophic and uniquely hard to contain in the Amazon plume," said Young. "And in addition to the risk of oil spills, the science clearly shows that we cannot afford to burn even existing oil reserves, let alone new ones."
"For us all to have a future, the oil industry can have no future," he added. "It makes zero sense to allow them to find new oil to throw on the fire."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular