Calif. pot dispensaries told by feds to shut down

[Headbandf1]

While many marijuana growers are piling on Obama,I want to here the same growers explain how dispensary operators like DeAnglo or Lee AREN'T profiteers.

here. here.

 

[dagnabit]

Lol. Mr. all or zero. There's something you don't get about inherent powers being [neither] all encompassing nor totally benign. But you have trolling down to a science.

i get it...
it depends on your ideology

But hey, huff post didn't say it, I did. I guess there's no sense in being relevant when you're already batting a thousand.

you really should read these threads.....

 

[RollmeoneKenobi]

Here is Ralph Nader stating we could revitalize the US economy growing Hemp. (Jack Herrer would be proud!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e-sBpUM1Fc
Here is the reason why we should have Ron Paul as the Republican Nomination for Prez!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNoPgLye0co

 

[Smoke Buddy]

Are you certain about that? I mean as I understand it there are three branches to the government, not two. The Executive, The Legislative and the Judicial. I'm not so sure it's as simple as firing someone or calling someone else and saying "Make it stop". US Attorney's are appointed by the President as are Supreme Court Justices but beyond that I'm not so sure the President has much say. If he had as much control as you imply it would seem to me that would undo the checks and balances created by having 3 seperate branches to the government. Nor am I convinced Obama is all that concerned about "The Marijuana Vote" if he was he wouldn't have chided the people asking about legalizing marijuana in that Internet Townhall he had back when he was first elected.

Oh and as for analogies, well an analogy doesn't have to be a perfect match to the thing it's being compared to, merely close enough to get the point across which in this case is that blame seldom if ever rises to the top and therefore it's hypocritical to hold the president to a standard that people don't hold other leaders or even themselves to.

Another thing to keep in mind is this. The last time a President tried to treat the US Attorney's office as if it answers to the President was when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales arbitrarily fired US Attorney's who didn't best serve the President's will. It caused such a controversey that in the end nine of the top DOJ Officials including Gonzales, retired a few months later. The controversey also caused Congress (by a large majority) to take away the provision that allowed the Executive branch to have such influence over the US Attorney's. So unless Obama could prove these Attorneys going after dispensaries was criminal, he couldn't fire them even if he wanted to.

Yeah man thats a reasoned response. Thanks for that. To answer your Q, no I am not certain. Nor are any of us. Since we dont have the information we have to discerne the truth by evaluating what we do know. So of course this is just my opinion. Im wrong on a fairly regular basis so maybe I am now but I doubt it LOL. I am quite aware of the relationship of the three branches, the cabinet and the presidential appointees. I think on this issue, where the president made commitments to support the rights of dispensaries to operate and provide a service, he has articulated a policy. For his appointee to go against that is not to be expected. Obama could stop Holder with one phone call on this issue. Holder absolutely answers to Obama and could be fired in a new york minute by Obama fior insubordination. Holder is an extension of Obama policy just as Gonzalez was of Bush. So I guess we gonna disagreee on that one. I feel that since the dispensaries are following states laws in in terms of their right to have the business in the first place and with the presidential nod previously, it puts this issue squarely in the "do not touch without talking to the president" catagorie and what Im saying is that Obama knew, knows and approves based on his reaction thats all. Its a small point Im making it doesnt really matter why they are doing it but it is on Obamas watch so he gets the credit in the broadest historical sense even if what you are saying is true. Did he order it? Maybe we will know some day.
Im just providing the counter point for those who are in lock step with the US Attorneys in their effort to shield the pres. I mean why would you choose to believe a bunch of Feds over common sense especially when we know they lie and they clearly have a reason to lie here...

 

[HempKat]

Yeah man thats a reasoned response. Thanks for that. I am quite aware of the relationship of the three branches, the cabinet and the presidential appointees. I think on this issue, where the president made commitments to support the rights of dispensaries to operate and provide a service, he has articulated a policy. For his appointee to go against that is not to be expected. Obama could stop Holder with one phone call on this issue. Holder absolutely answers to Obama and could be fired in a new york minute by Obama fior insubordination. Holder is an extension of Obama policy. So I guess we gonna disagreee on that one. I feel that since the dispensaries are following states laws in in terms of their right to have the business in the first place and with the presidential nod previously, it puts this issue squarely in the "do not touch without talking to the president" catagorie and what Im saying is that Obama knew, knows and approves based on his reaction thats all. Its a small point Im making it doesnt really matter why they are doing it but it is on Obamas watch so he gets the credit in the broadest historical sense even if what you are saying is true. Did he order it? Maybe we will know some day.
Im just providing the counter point for those who are in lock step with the US Attorneys in their effort to shield the pres. I mean why would you choose to believe a bunch of Feds over common sense especially when we know they lie and they clearly have a reason to lie here...

Well I tend to believe what the people actually doing something says, over an outsider's opinion of what someone is doing. If none of them said anything then I'd be more inclined to do as you and speculate the President is more involved. Nor do I see where they have reason to lie as has been said they can't be fired merely for working against the President's agenda and you can thank George Bush and Alberto Gonzales for that. Which is not just something I'm saying but a matter of historical record.

What I'm more inclined to believe, with regards to the President's silence/inaction is that he's trying to court more of the conservative vote for the upcoming election. I'm sure of one thing though and that is he's not strongly motivated or interested in moving the Medical Marijuana issue forward in a positive direction. If anything he's avoided the issue for the most part and pretty much all of his "promises" to the supporters of Medical Marijuana are mostly what supporters have read into his words. Just like much of the far left who have been disappointed by the President's right leaning middle of the road actions. You have to understand that the vast majority of registered, active voters are Senior citizens still brain washed by things like "Reefer Madness" and in that kind of political environment any smart politician is going to avoid anything too radical so as to not upset that majority too much. Once that group dies off then I think you'll see some true marijuana reform but until then it's going to be the three steps forward, two steps back the movement has experienced so far.

 

[Smoke Buddy]

Well then there ya go.
I think it is naiive to choose to believe a cop over common sense.
The president has zero chance of capturing any percentage of the conservative vote. He is the antithesis of conservatism. In fact along with the conservatives the indis are gonna vote him out, not someone else in, if ya get my drift. (ABO)
Holder may be fired (submit his resignation) anyway over his lies and tricks on F&F but hey you have every right to go right on believing what the feds tell you. LOL...

 

[dagnabit]

so some belive the DOJ operates as an autonomous entity with no direct supervision from the executive branch?!?!?

whom does holder report to?

 

[RollmeoneKenobi]

For what ever reason this was done Obama will wear it whether he was directly responsible or not. This backpedaling to distance himself will not carry any water with our community. If this was done with his compliance to gain favor with the more conservative elements in our country it was a foolish miscalculation. That side hates everything that he is , and will still protest against him. Look at presidential candidates like Rick Perry that still float the birther rumors in our national dialogue. The birth certificate issue will never die because too many people want to believe in it regardless of the facts. Fact is Obama never said he would legalize mj, and he avoided the subject as much as he could during the election. At the first FB townhall meeting he derided people for mj legalization being their number 1 priority. When in reality he should double down and become the Liberal he always being accused of and he would actually stand a better chance of being reelected!

 

[dagnabit]

[YOUTUBEIF]LvUziSfMwAw[/YOUTUBEIF]

how in the world does the president say "what im not going to be doing is using justice department resources to circumvent stte laws on this issue"
we all know the president cant control justice department resources right?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

For what ever reason this was done Obama will wear it whether he was directly responsible or not. This backpedaling to distance himself will not carry any water with our community. If this was done with his compliance to gain favor with the more conservative elements in our country it was a foolish miscalculation. That side hates everything that he is , and will still protest against him. Look at presidential candidates like Rick Perry that still float the birther rumors in our national dialogue. The birth certificate issue will never die because too many people want to believe in it regardless of the facts. Fact is Obama never said he would legalize mj, and he avoided the subject as much as he could during the election. At the first FB townhall meeting he derided people for mj legalization being their number 1 priority. When in reality he should double down and become the Liberal he always being accused of and he would actually stand a better chance of being reelected!

Well said. I'm not sure being more pragmatic towards reform would equate to reelection. Democratic voters don't always turn out in large numbers like conservative voters.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Medical Marijuana Crackdown Should Stop, House Reps Say

Posted: 10/30/11 03:04 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- Members of Congress are calling on the Obama administration to end the federal crackdown on marijuana dispensaries in California, citing Attorney General Eric Holder's past promise to maintain a hands-off approach toward pot clinics operating in compliance with state law.

Although most of the nine signatories on a Friday letter to the White House were California Democrats -- including Reps. Barbara Lee, Pete Stark, Lynn Woolsey and Sam Farr -- the group also contained a California Republican, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who is an outspoken medical marijuana advocate, and a Tennessee Democrat, Rep. Steve Cohen.

"We write to express our concern with the recent activity by the Department of Justice against legitimate medical cannabis dispensaries in California that are operating legally under state law," the lawmakers said.

Federal prosecutors targeted medical marijuana dispensary owners in California on Oct. 7, vowing to shutter state-licensed businesses and threatening landlords with property seizures for violating federal drug laws. Now these House members are pushing back.

"It is our strong position that local and state governments must be allowed to develop, implement and enforce their own public health laws with regard to medical cannabis," the letter stated.

The letter comes just days after hundreds of marijuana activists gathered in downtown San Francisco, where President Barack Obama was attending a fundraising luncheon, to protest the federal crackdown on California's pot clinics.

But the scope of Friday's letter stretched beyond California. The threatening notices sent to landlords by California's four U.S. attorneys follow many months of federal interference in other states that permit medical cannabis, with aggressive federal raids in at least seven, the representatives noted.

They called on the White House to reclassify marijuana as a legitimate controlled substance for medicinal purposes and to adopt the States' Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act, legislation introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) that would prohibit federal interference in state-run medical marijuana clinics.

"By pursuing the same harsh policies that have been in place for years, we fear that the federal government will push legitimate patients back into the uncertainly and danger of the illicit market," the letter continued.

The White House did not immediately respond to a query about the letter sent by HuffPost after business hours; another to the Justice Department also went unreturned over the weekend.

Read the full letter from members of Congress here.

Late on Friday, the White House did release a response to several online petitions for marijuana legalization submitted by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and other groups as part of the White House's "We The People" project, an effort to allow ordinary Americans to gain the attention of policymakers through an online portal at the White House website.

"Like many, we are interested in the potential marijuana may have in providing relief to individuals diagnosed with certain serious illnesses," the White House wrote in its official response. "That is why we ardently support ongoing research into determining what components of the marijuana plant can be used as medicine. To date, however, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found smoked marijuana to meet the modern standard for safe or effective medicine for any condition."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...n-house-representatives-letter_n_1065354.html

 

[Dr. Purpur]

Well there is Your White house response

Well there is Your White house response

White house is Obama as far as Im concerned. They want to see what they can synthecise, and still keep it illegal.

Big Tobacco, Big Alcohol, and Big Pharma own the White House, and any donkeys and elephants that venture there

 

[HempKat]

Well then there ya go.
I think it is naiive to choose to believe a cop over common sense.
The president has zero chance of capturing any percentage of the conservative vote. He is the antithesis of conservatism. In fact along with the conservatives the indis are gonna vote him out, not someone else in, if ya get my drift. (ABO)
Holder may be fired (submit his resignation) anyway over his lies and tricks on F&F but hey you have every right to go right on believing what the feds tell you. LOL...

It's not a matter of believing a cop especially since a DOJ official is not really a cop. Actually what I was believing as you put it, was a story being reported favorably towards Obama by a source who has shown more of an inclination to report unfavorably about Obama. Common sense tells me that if one's enemy's speak favorably of a person it's usually the truth.

As for the President's chances...well hell son if you think you're such an accurate prognosticator of politics then you're wasting your time here on this site. There are people out there in the real world who will pay big bucks to know the future before it happens. If the republican's or the indi's actually had a candidate worth a shit you might be right. Alas, they don't and there are alot of rational conservatives and indis not so blinded by their ideology as to vote in any of the Republican candidates just to vote Obama out. Not all conservatives or indis are that narrow minded and ignorant. If you got a sitting President who maybe you don't care for but he keeps allowing you the things you want, it would be foolish to vote him out for someone who has yet to prove they'll allow the things you want.

The main problem is everybody but Obama wants to try to find a way out of honoring what is about 6 Trillion dollars of the national debt owed to the Social Security trust fund. Stole....ahem... borrowed by every politician that's held office since the Nixion administration, if not further back. That's why so many want to just eliminate Social Security. Get rid of it and boom, nearly half the national debt is wiped off the books. The problem for the politicians though is that the majority of the active registered voters who actually get out and vote are the seniors currently surviving on Social Security. Not to mention they're the ones most deserving of what they get from Social Security as they're the ones that were paying into it since the Nixion administration if not further back. So technically it was their money the politicians were stealing. Now if the young ever wake up and realize that it's the politicians playing a ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff look like an amature by paying for the seniors with the withholdings from the young. Rather then somehow blaming the old for being old, then the politicians will be really screwed and we might even see a revolution. Who knows, we might even see the practice of tarring and feathering people come back into vouge?

 

[HempKat]

so some belive the DOJ operates as an autonomous entity with no direct supervision from the executive branch?!?!?

whom does holder report to?

Same people as the Supreme Court justices I suppose? Just because the President appoints him it doesn't mean he kowtows to him. I never said the Executive branch doesn't supervise the DOJ. I just said thanks to Congress because of Bush Jr. the Executive branch has very little real control over it. I mean it's kind of hard to force people to do your bidding if you can't punish them when they don't. So all you can really do is appoint people you think will do what you want and then hope you were a good judge of character.

Besides everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that the President never really made any commitments to the dispensaries. He merely said it's a waste of resources to go after them if the States are satisfied with how they operate. Perhaps where one really needs to be looking at for blame are the states elected leaders where the raids are happening? Perhaps they've sent the message to the DOJ that they aren't satisfied with how the dispensaries operate and so now it's no longer a waste of resources to the DOJ?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

An article I posted here suggests as much. Something about California officials feeling Obama is 'aloof' to the problems associated with more weed proliferation.

 

[HempKat]

For what ever reason this was done Obama will wear it whether he was directly responsible or not. This backpedaling to distance himself will not carry any water with our community. If this was done with his compliance to gain favor with the more conservative elements in our country it was a foolish miscalculation. That side hates everything that he is , and will still protest against him. Look at presidential candidates like Rick Perry that still float the birther rumors in our national dialogue. The birth certificate issue will never die because too many people want to believe in it regardless of the facts. Fact is Obama never said he would legalize mj, and he avoided the subject as much as he could during the election. At the first FB townhall meeting he derided people for mj legalization being their number 1 priority. When in reality he should double down and become the Liberal he always being accused of and he would actually stand a better chance of being reelected!

I agree with much of what you're saying especially since you're saying much of what I've been saying. I would however disagree with how you're viewing the birther thing with Perry. From everything I've heard in the national dialog about it lately it not because so many still want to believe Obama wasn't born here but rather that they can't believe anybody running for office would be stupid enough to float it again. Especially after how well it worked out for Donald Trump. I even heard it reported that Carl Rove told Perry it was a stupid move on his part.

As far as our community, well I know it's hard to believe but in the grand scheme of things the voting block we represent isn't significant enough for the President to go double down as you put it. Like it or not the people who get out and vote in far greater numbers then us are the majority of folks brain washed against marijuana and who believe it to be genuinely evil. Like both you and I have recognized now the President has done his best to be neither too much for or too much against marijuana. Rather what he's done is put his lawyer skills to use and said just enough to get people to fill in the blanks the way he wants them to.

I'm also not so sure playing to the liberals would get him re-elected. Doing so is what got him elected but he's pissed too many of them off with the consessions he's made to the republican's that I'd doubt many Liberals would trust him now.

 

[jburns]

holder reports to various lobbyists, the prez reports to the elites....its simple.

 

[huligun]

It gets right down to money. You make too much and you have enemies pure and simple. The more you make the harder you have to work to keep it and to keep making it. Usually people or businesses that make a lot of money are exploiting people and that is where it all comes down.

 

[windrunner1]

Disappointing. The feds have also passed a law stating that if you have a med card you can't own a gun. Come and get me boys. I'm not giving up my right to defend myself.

 

[HempKat]

[YOUTUBEIF]LvUziSfMwAw[/YOUTUBEIF]

how in the world does the president say "what im not going to be doing is using justice department resources to circumvent stte laws on this issue"
we all know the president cant control justice department resources right?

Well for one he says it because at the time he said it he wasn't President. It's the wierdest thing though, these people that run for President will say just about anything if they think it will get them a vote.

Also apparently not all do know that besides Obama you for one seem to think he has or should have complete control over the DOJ. Now in Obama's case I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and presume he meant that he would accomplish this by appointing people he feels will follow his lead. You on the other hand I'm not so sure. Sometimes I think you really do know what's going on but just can't help spinning it differently but then other times I think you genuinely have no clue.

What I also know is anybody who believed Obama was in support of legalizing Marijuana just wasn't paying attention.

A spokesman for Obama’s campaign blamed confusion over the meaning of decriminalization for the inconsistencies, and said that while Obama does not support decriminalization, "we are sending far too many first-time, nonviolent drug users to prison for very long periods of time, and that we should rethink those laws."

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/17/225516/066

Obama actually interrupted the M.C of the event -- Jared Bernstein, chief economist to the Vice President -- in order to tackle the topic. He kept his answer brief.

"There was one question that voted on that ranked fairly high and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation," he said. "And I don't know what this says about the online audience, but ... this was a popular question. We want to make sure it's answered. The answer is no, I don't think that's a good strategy to grow our economy. All right."

Responded Bernstein: "Thank you for clearing that up."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/26/obama-takes-pot-legalizat_n_179563.html

(White House press secretary Robert Gibbs later clarified Mr. Obama's position: "The president opposes the legalization of marijuana…he does not think that's the right plan for America." Pressed by CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller, Gibbs declined to discuss the president's position on medical marijuana.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4894639-503544.html

The president’s tough position was delivered in early March by his “drug czar,” Gil Kerlikowske, in a private talk before police chiefs in California – which is ground zero for this debate.

“Marijuana legalization – for any purpose – is a nonstarter in the Obama administration,” said Mr. Kerlikowske, a former police chief himself.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary...a-legalization-A-White-House-rebuttal-finally

As should now be clear by those who some how think Obama made a commitment to the dispensaries. People believe what they want to believe and often will not let pesky things like facts and reality to get in the way.