Feds seize Alaska man's home in marijuana case
Published Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!ANCHORAGE -- A Sutton man who grew marijuana at his home had to forfeit the house to the federal government as part of his conviction on drug charges.
Donald Keith Johnston also was sentenced in federal court in Anchorage to 30 months in prison for his conviction of conspiring with others to distribute marijuana.
For more than three years, prosecutors say the 46-year-old Johnston and others used snowmobiles in the winter and concealed compartments in the summer to transport marijuana from Canada to Alaska.
After that was discovered, the government says Johnston grew marijuana at his Sutton residence, making it subject to forfeiture.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
How did they get caught i wonder?
Sucks to be him. I too wonder how they were caught.
If his only crime was growing pot, I feel sorry for the dude.
Time to get rid of probation! And tax it!
Too bad,so sad, don't do the crime if you can't do the time
Mit: Get rid of probation and tax it? I trust you meant prohibition.
Dang spell check programs, they do that to me too. :-|
Dr. C.
As a former weed smoker
I can see why it is illegal,
Many lives ruined by the weed..........
if you don't think so then you sir are worse than hitler!
HATERS!!!!!!
just kidding.
i wonder if he owned the house prior to growing marijuana. if he did, why is the government stealing his home from him? he didn't gain the house from the proceeds of drug sales. federal government is just a thief.
One can always rely on polarmark to give the polarized view of the AIP. So what if the fellow committed a felony? So what if he was growing illegal substances and selling them? Polarmark assumes the house was not paid for by drug sales and uses that assumption to launch his usual and predictable tirade against the government. Migosh, the thought that someone might actually incur more than a slap on the wrist must infuriate polarmark when it comes to drug sales or so one would infer from his remarks.
As was said earlier....if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. His house was used in the growth and manufacture of an illegal drug, he knew what he could lose by doing this, and he chose to go ahead and do so anyway. BUT...if you get caught doing something so illegal as this be sure to call polarmark up for legal defense funds. After all, it's more important to him the nasty ol' feds be thwarted than a criminal be punished.
Dang it !
Loosing your home for growing weed does seem harsh. If the crime is so severe why only 30 months time. That does seem reasonable. I guess he just didn't do it big enough to afford the best attorneys.
If it is used in the commission of a crime it can be seized
The problem with the "can't do the time, don't do the crime" theory is that smoking, growing, selling, and buying marijuana shouldn't be illegal. It's a VICTIMLESS "crime", and in this case I use the word crime loosely. Everyone involved in any of those activities is doing it by choice. Nobody is being hurt and nobody's property is being damaged, therefore .... no victims. It's always just been about gaining revenue for the government by enforcing this "law".
I agree with the victimless crime part. There are sooo many people in Alaska that smoke pot. I bet there will be a ton of posts on this comment board.
This is so ridiculous. It would be nice to see Mr. Madson take on another client, pro bono, during his retirement. Our government is out of control people.
He didnt just grow pot, he transported and distributed over International boarders. If he would have grown for his own personal use in his home without anybody knowing he would have no problem, no one would care. He is a manufacturer, importer and exporter without a license and everything is about money, he sold an exportable product without the government getting their share of his pie, NO NO NO! Cant do that!
Guess that means dobieman didn't really mean doobieman after all...
So do the feds destroy the seized pot or do they just throw in it an evidence room? Probably got a huge storage area packed to the ceiling with herb. Unless they're practicing a 'controlled burn.'
We really need to fix that law before it ruins more lives.
"controlled burn" in this case means the police officer is adjusting the flame of his Bic before sparking a bowl.
Really. On the FDNM July 22 editorial "Assessing the Conflict," Mr. Nice Trooper wouldn't address the suggestion for drug testing for cops.
As I said before, not that I agree with it in any employ, but since the public has "accepted" it, being a cop should be the Number 1 job that should be drug tested.
Corinne, you took the words right out of my mouth.
Have the feds seized the houses of our convicted legislators? No? So taking bribes and selling your vote after swearing to uphold the state and federal constitutions are lesser crimes than enjoying a relaxing buzz? Now we know.
Corinne: I was referring to you saying dobieman isn't a doobieman, but I like your second post as well. If only we tested presidents...
Dr. C.
The reason they can take the house is because of a little word called "facilitate". All they have to do is convince the judge or jury that the house (or whatever they want to seize) facilitated the crime. Put simply they argue that the item somehow made it easier for the person to commit the crime--facilitated the crime. If you were wealthy and your family's wealth made it easier for you to buy drugs, because you had money, then they could easily argue that your trust fund facilitated the purchase of drugs and seize it.
Most people are familiar with "proceeds", meaning it was bought or subsidized with drug money. The proceeds prosecution is much easier to defend against, where as the facilitation prosecution is much more abstract and harder to defend against.
Now if you were busting these huge drug cartels in Alaska, wouldn't you want to seize their assets and completely ruin their life? Of course, so you use the forfeiture clause of the law--argue facilitation--and you get to legally take everything they own.
Rich your post came up while I was typing earlier, I want to add my agreement to your comments as well.
Corrine, I didn't answer because I was running out of space. I would be willing to take a drug test any where, any time, any place.
Well, that's 1 trooper, see if you can get the rest to agree, and then actually do it.... It'll never happen.
That's hilarious. The only "clean" trooper volunteers.
Seizing the mans house is going a bit too far but trying to move stuff across the border IS stupid, but now some meth manufacturer is probably going to acquire the house and NEVER get busted.
Why does this state seem to bust ONLY pot dealers? where are the stories about meth and coke dealers getting busted???
I read the story about the guy in Barrow, but thats barrow, NOT FAIRBANKS, does the borough support dangerous drug distributors or something?
The "Meth" guys can't hold onto their possessions long enough for the police to seize them. Gotta hock their stuff for more meth.
That's the truth Rich. I'm with ya Lost.
Mr. Clean Trooper, what about the rest of the things you don't address?
Doesn't matter; we already have learned you'll only find some way to justify them, as I and others pointed out on
http://newsminer.com/news/2008/jul/22/as...
amen wtwilly and rich_kelley.
I feel bad for this dude, but that is why I quit growing so many years ago. I dont even smoke anymore, but I am intelligent enough to realize that prohibition is stupid, wrong, even criminal in itself. Our forefathers had none of this in mind when they established this country. Back to this case, how many remember the Collette brothers? They felt the sting of the feds as well. The AIP has the right ideas, and we should embrace them!!
John Collette has even managed to get a large percentage of his stuff back after proving that the feds took it illegally. However the financial and emotional toll is something he and his family will be feeling for generations to come.
There is talk of a "victimless crime", why is it that no-one seems to take issue with seatbelt laws or mandatory insurance? Just because something is a good idea or even a "smart" thing to do, doesn't make it worthy of becoming law.
The idea that selling pot is victimless however, is inaccurate when viewed in the same light as many other "drugs". The toll on society is often touted as the "victim" and should probably start to include cigarettes and alcohol as well. I personally do not support this argument, but if you are going to discuss a subject intelligently you are required to view both sides with equal weight before making your case for whichever side you do support.
Mandatory insurance covers the other guy or "victim" in the accident. Seat belt laws cover the passengers or "victims" in a crash. Marijuana laws cover ... hmmm I don't know.
Seat belts save lives, no joke.
Marijuana consumption kills exactly 0 (zero) people each year.
Alcohol consumption kills around 20,000 (twenty thousand) people each year.
The numbers speak for themselves.
It is unfortunate that you two did not read more my post carefully.
I did not dispute that seat belts save lives, I simply stated that it should not be a law. If I choose to drive my car unbelted then that is my choice, just as it is if I choose to drive with my seatbelt on. While it is a good idea not to plunge a hot curling iron in one's rectum, there is no law stating such.
With respect to Rich's comment on insurance, while I believe it is a HUGE racket, I am willing to give you points for your statement as it makes a valid point.
Your comment on marijuana laws however, seems lacking to me. When I was younger there were kids in my neighborhood that would steal money from their parents--the victim here--to buy weed. One could even make a case that the fundamental downfall of society is fueled by those who would rather smoke weed than become active in their family, community, country, or their own life. When viewed in this light there are many "victims", most notably the user.
I support the legalization of marijuana as does our state's constitution. I would only suggest that if you wish to sway public opinion that you present a more substantial argument in the future.
While it is a good idea not to plunge a hot curling iron in one's rectum, there is no law stating such.
I am still chuckling over that line!! I too support our Constitution and the right for Alaskans to do whatever in their own home as long as it is not impacting another. Govt. needs to get out of our living rooms and bedrooms. Alaskans had better be very vigilant in our way of life, lest we lose it to the "do gooders" that are coming up and trying to change it to be like where they came from!!!
..."rather smoke weed than"...go to school.
I agree.
But Lost, I bet the numbers are higher than that. Lots of folks have bad livers, decreased immunity, and such.
For one example, passing out drunk in roads and getting hit by cars...I believe that should be considered death by drunkenness. But the stats, I think, only reflect the fault of the driver if the driver had had something to drink...
Yukonjohn-
We already are, and plenty of them are coming from within also.
There's no curling iron law?? It's only a matter of time!
Hi Corinne, I think we have a common friend. He is a fantastic old time Alaskan that used to wash dishes at that really nice restuarant on the Hot Springs Road. He said he thought he might know you, but even at that, you are absolutely right, Alaska is being attacked by people that are already here and ones coming up too!!! I cannot imagine how bad people that have been here generations must feel. I am still a Cheechako and have only been here 27 years. I just wish things would somehow go backward to when I came, even with the lack of stuff and high prices!!
Probably. I've been around awhile!
Wouldn't call you a cheechako though.
Pre-ANILCA would be nice, eh?
come on somebody give me a candy bar? I am starving!!
And, lagirl evidences the highly dangerous side-effects of this evil loco-weed!!!
*chuckle*
Seriously though, don't export your goods over the border - keep it in your home, and you'll be alright...
Wow- "more 'substantial' argument" huh? like do you want 3000 words or should I just go on with endless political and legal terms like we're actually in congress or something?
The simple fact of the matter is that Alcohol is DEADLY when consumed in large quantities, you can actually choke on the marijuana itself sure, you could asphyxiate from smoke yep, but you cannot die from a THC overdose, you can die from an alcohol overdose it happens ALL THE TIME.
But I don't have time to argue this all day on the DNM blog, it is just as I said- the numbers speak for themselves and anybody that doesn't actually know how much MORE of a problem alcohol is than marijuana is grossly misinformed and needs to study the terrible effects alcohol has had on mankind, not to mention people we actually know personally or the people we read about in the paper almost everyday-d.u.i.'s, domestic assaults and all the bizzare and stupid things people do when under the influence of alcohol.
But I know what happened the last time they prohibited alcohol and I wouldn't want to bring that monster back, take peoples drinks away and then you will see "victims" of crime, I have very close family members gone as a DIRECT result of alcohol, not cancer or a "bad liver" or even, lol "decreased immunity", but cheap, legal, DEADLY alcohol poisoning.
Actually Lost, since you quoted me, I was talking about Rick's argument of, "Marijuana laws cover ... hmmm I don't know." :D
I would still like to see the answer from Chelly about not having to step out of your vehicle and take a sobriety test or blow into a field breathalyzer... Unless I missed it. I didn't see the answer....
weed for greed..........
start with weed......
before you know it your friends with people who do powder.
How do I know?
Truth is, your life can be trashed quite quickly by poor descisions like saying, "it's a victimless crime........never hurt anyone"
It was entertainingly nostalgic to see the comments of some folks in here about how the AIP has the right idea. Frankly, they never have had the "right idea" though they like to delude themselves into thinking they are the Last Word in What Is Right. When Vogler first started showing signs of dementia (i.e., when he first began the party) there were enough fringe voters to actually give them a shot at some significance. They got a few folks into the Legislature....and nothing came of it. After a term or two they went onto the has-beens list.
But their crowning achievement...the one that always makes me chuckle...was when they were totally duped by Hickel into supporting him as the AIP candidate for governor. He was elected not because he espoused the AIP platform and thereby represented a majority of Alaskans but because he had name recognition from his previous stint as governor. No sooner did he get into office than he basically flipped the AIP the bird and did his own thing, leaving them sputtering in the dust, more the fools. In fact, his entire term as the "AIP" governor was so filled with the rancor between him and his new party that frankly it became entertaining. In almost 40 years up here I never saw anything so ludicrous as the AIP trying to cover their political butts while he ran over them like a bulldozer over marshmallows.
So, what has all this do with this news item? Well, besides the mention of the AIP, which anymore in most parts of Alaska engenders quite a bit of chuckling and guffaws, the point to be made is currently what the convicted fellow did was against the law. If as many folks in here have claimed it isn't so bad, then get the law removed from the books. It's that simple. On the other hand, if you are stupid enough to break the law don't try to act the unsuspecting innocent when you get smacked down good and hard.
Meanwhile, don't hold your breath waiting for the AIP to come to your rescue. They're still trying to live down the humiliation of when Hickel pulled the wool over their eyes!
(BTW, I know they claim the title of being the biggest independent political party in the country, but that's like someone claiming they are the tallest midget. It may be so, but they are still a midget.)
I was driving to NP last week and noticed a VERY unmarked truck with a car pulled over.... I didn't catch what the front of it was marked with but from behind the only sign that it was a cop was the brake light in the back window was flashing red and white. It was a very nice looking 4x4 truck!
My first thought was sucks to be the drug dealer who lost it!
ILEGAL DRUGS ARE LOSER!!!
Everyone keeps calling it a victimless crime but what about the person who is stoned and gets behind the wheel and due to delayed reaction time hits and kills someone, who's not a victim now?
I'd like to see the statistics on vehicle deaths related to pot and compare them to vehicle deaths related to alcohol. Which one is legal again?
AKARMYWIFE, Nothing about ingesting cannabis mandates that a person drives under the influence of anything.
The choice to drive impaired is a separate issue altogether from ingesting cannabis. Cannabis use, unlike alcohol use, often raises inhibitions, rather than lowering them.
But if you'd like to see some DOT-funded research that the government has wished for a decade and a half would go away (mostly because the studies interfere in their purveyance of anti-drug propaganda), then read 'Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance,' a study performed in the Netherlands, on DOT contract grant monies, in part by a Dutch professor from Amsterdam by the last name of Robb. (Don't bother with the abstract, as they've butchered some of the better portions of the study, and likely not by accident. Get the entire study from the NHTSB; depending on where you go to get it, it can sometimes be gotten for free. I gave my last of a dozen copies to a government body in the State...)
After that, read their follow-up study, titled, 'Marijuana, Alcohol, and Actual Driving Performance.'
Then consider that the various 'hallmark studies' that the feds routinely like to point to in their efforts to perpetuate their propaganda re. cannabis, have, for the most part, been invalidated in court as non-scientific and unreliable (read: junk science), when the feds have brought them into courts as 'evidence.' This includes the now-infamous flight simulator study that claimed that impairment from cannabis lasted longer than 24 hours.
But with over $58 Billion per year being spent annually, just domestically, just on -enforcement- of the drug war, which nets far more cannabis cases than anything else, there's a lot of money to be lost by the parasites of this 'war' if it's ever put into proper focus.
If you take persons' property and freedom away, over what amounts to arbitrary issues, when that person hasn't taken anything that wasn't theirs, and hasn't harmed anyone, or forced someone to be part of an activity that they didn't agree to, then don't be surprised when that person reacts as though they're dealing with aggressive and out-of-control thieves, because they are. And they should be dealt with accordingly.
I know many persons who have not forfeited the right to regulate the relationships between their own bodies and minds to the government. When an entity intrudes in any way, especially with force, into that private area of relationship between the self and the body/mind, it's intrusive and presumptuous, and constitutes an act of tyranny, regardless of what false shade of moralism someone paints it in..
My relationship with myself isn't a matter for democratic or any other public process to decide; not until I harm another in some way, does it become such. Society has failed to acknowledge just how intrusive and tyrannous it's become.
Just for the publics' consideration, links to the aforementioned articles are provided here: http://www.ukcia.org/research/driving.ht... and http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc... respectively.
Thank you, Bornnbred.
As I stated earlier, the on-line abstracts don't really do the more complete studies the amount of justice that they deserve. They, in fact, imply a slightly stronger assessment of risk than the complete studies did, in my opinion.
One significant and noteworthy paragraph in the abstract, as well as in the study, is this one:
-----------------------------------------
"THC's effects on road-tracking after doses up to 300 g/kg never exceeded alcohol's at bacs of 0.08 g%; and, were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs' (Robbe, 1994; Robbe and O'Hanlon, 1995; O'Hanlon et al., 1995). Yet, THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the former's users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence."
----------------------------------------------------
In other words, cannabis smokers were more able behind the wheel to compensate for impairment, became more cautious (whereas alcohol-impaired drivers became riskier drivers), and the persons involved, despite smoking the totality of 1 to 3 joints, never exceeded the amount of impairment present in a driver who registered a BAC of .08 after consuming alcohol.
We permit most persons to drive on the highways when they register under .08, unless some other factor in their performance determines that they're otherwise impaired.
When cannabis is combined with alcohol, however, there is a synergystic effect, and the combination takes additional attributes.
To quote a retired State Trooper I knew here in the Interior of Alaska years ago, and one of the few whom I respected for his honesty and his humanity, as well as his experience, "I've pulled a lot of bodies out of automobile wrecks where persons were drinking alcohol. I've never pulled a single body out of a wreck where all that they'd been doing was smoking some pot. Pot and other drugs, or pot and alcohol combined, yes, I've seen those bodies. But I've never pulled a body out of a wreck where all that person had been doing was smoking pot."
I also take strong exception to those who get their panties in a bunch over the fact that someone who grew some pot, later sold it. We used to call that capitalism in this country, providing that it didn't involve coercion of any sort. Yet the number of persons I've encountered who use cannabis themselves, but advocate for those who sell it to be locked up, makes me scratch my head.
I mean, those persons smoking it, unless they grew it themselves, got it somewhere, right?? Those persons I regard as hypocrites of the highest order.
Outlaw oil too... Cause we are all addicted to it.. Hehehehe
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.