Calif. pot dispensaries told by feds to shut down

[supermanlives]

theres soo much glass and head shops in sd . i still preferr joints tho. but have a few cheap glass bongs at 30 bucks its easier to throw em out than clean em. they guy i buy em from dont make you use code words. a fucking bong is a bong LOL he has even stated as i walked in ,,,, so you broke another bong i assume

 

[headband 707]

From Wiki on Federal USA Laws,,,

From Wiki on Federal USA Laws,,,

Many described the Rehnquist Court's Commerce Clause cases as a doctrine of "New Federalism". The outer limits of that doctrine were delineated by Gonzales v. Raich, in which Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy departed from their previous positions as parts of the Lopez and Morrison majorities to uphold a federal law regarding marijuana. The Court found the federal law valid, although the marijuana in question had been grown and consumed within a single state, and had never entered Interstate Commerce. The court held Congress may regulate a non-economic good, which is intrastate, if it does so as part of a complete scheme of legislation designed to regulate Interstate Commerce.
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution has in the last two decades played a part in the Court's view of the Commerce Clause. The Tenth Amendment states that the federal government has only the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people. The Commerce Clause is an important source of those powers delegated to Congress, and therefore its interpretation is very important in determining the scope of federal power in controlling innumerable aspects of American life. The Commerce Clause has been the most widely interpreted clause in the Constitution, making way for many laws which, some argue, contradict the original intended meaning of the Constitution. Justice Clarence Thomas has gone so far as to state in his dissent to Gonzales,

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.[15]
​

 

[dagnabit]

Somehow this fellow got around the law for more than a year through some kind of loopholes, I am not sure. Well they finally closed all his loopholes and closed him down.

the law allowed for businesses to sell existing stock but not reorder. a lot of guys were stocking entire storage units/warehouses the day before the law passed so they would have enough existing stock to keep going for a year or two. the markup on that garbage is astronomical! some of them were unfortunate enough to not have the requisite proof that ALL of it was preexisting stock.

 

[huligun]

the law allowed for businesses to sell existing stock but not reorder. a lot of guys were stocking entire storage units/warehouses the day before the law passed so they would have enough existing stock to keep going for a year or two. the markup on that garbage is astronomical! some of them were unfortunate enough to not have the requisite proof that ALL of it was preexisting stock.

My girl friend's best friend is on probation and a spice user. She told my girl friend that the fellow with the glass shop was Making his own spice. That may fall in line with what you are saying.

Every time my girl smoked the spice (her friend kept pressuring her into trying it) she got too high or sick. The other girl's boy friend was complaining to me about the way his girl behaved on spice and was trying to get her to stop. We are friends, and I was really on the spot when this girl asked me to pick her up some spice. She was on probation, as I said above, and not allowed to go into places like the glass shop. That is how I met the fellow as I have no desire to smoke spice. The girl tried to pressure me into trying spice a few times and I just had to tell her the last time no, never don't even ask. I know a man that is a complete drug addict with pills and meth. He said the spice made him too high and sick too. I don't like that drug addict one bit, but I am forced to be around him for short times off and on.

I guess this is getting a little off point. What I was originally getting at is if law enforcement wants to shut you down or raid you they can and will. Once they have taken you the jail, taken all your money, taken all your inventory and trashed you to the local press you are finished. You can fight the courts and possibly win, but your business is destroyed at that point. And when the cops bust a place like that people like me will not go anywhere near the place if it reopens. I like the owner a lot, but I do not need to get pulled over by the police and have to say no to a random search.

 

[HempKat]

my comment was in relation to this

sorry it was beyond your scope to comprehend...

I know what your comment was in relationship to but since the United States is nothing like a virgin and doing things to rebuild the economy and workforce is nothing like unfucking a virgin, your comment still remains riddiculous and has nothing to do with the point being made.

 

[HempKat]

First I'm going to ask if you read the link I put up about Obama'a fixation on medical cannabis?
Then I'm going to ask you if you have ever worked with any Gov body and their regulations?
Even trying to make spirits do you know what you need to pass the Gov regulations?
I would say you do not...
lol sorry bra they make this whole proccess as hard as it gets go out and look for yourself lol headband 707

Yes I read your link however I felt it distorts the facts much the same way people here distort the facts. Then again maybe that's why people here distort them, they read things like this and believe it to be truth and never once consider the political agenda of the news source since it agrees with their personal views. That's why mainstream media is so fucked up because you have a whole bunch of sources that are reporting from the far left perspective, a whole bunch reporting from the far right and very few reporting from a purely factual perspective.

As to the second part of your question no I do not know specifically how hard the government makes it to pass regulations but that is irrelevent to the point I was making. It was suggested that one is not allowed to make their own liquor or grow their own tobacco which is false. What isn't allowed is for individuals who do make their own liquor or grow their own tobacco, to go out and distribute it. To do that one must submit themselves and their product to the Government's regulatory process. Same is true for most anything though especially when dealing with things meant for human consumption. So to spell it out in simple terms I'm saying legalization will not prevent people from being able to grow just from being able to grow and deal and really it won't be legalization that prevents them but rather regulations designed to protect consumers from people who only care about how much money they can make. Personally I could care less about how tough the regulations might be though because if it does become legal I'll just keep growing for myself like I already do. I'll just not have to always worry about security the way I do now.

I'm just curious, if it does become legal will ATF become ATMF?

 

[HempKat]

sad that people have been taught this horseshit in pubic schools and then go out and spread it 'round.

no federallaw does not preempt,supersede nor override state law. in fact those powers not delegated to the feds or prohibited directly are reserved for the states and the people respectively. unless specifically stated in the constitution state law preempts federal in all cases.

It is specifically stated in the constitution, it's know as the Supremacy Clause and is spelled out in Artical 6 of the Constitution.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/pubs/consthi/03consthiIII051.htm

Another method of striking the balance between state and federal power was to provide certain powers to the federal government, specifically divest states of certain powers, and reserve certain powers to the states. Thus, article I, section 8 lays out the specific powers, called the “enumerated powers,” of the U.S. Congress. Article 6, called the “Supremacy Clause,” provides that the U.S. Constitution, the laws of the United States, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States, are “the supreme law of the land.” In addition, article I, section 10 prohibits the states from engaging in numerous activities, including coining money, passing ex post facto laws or laws impairing the obligation of contracts, and, with certain exceptions, engaging in war. Finally, the 10th Amendment further provides that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” These provisions establish the boundaries of federal preemption of state laws. Under the Supremacy Clause, if a state law is preempted by the U.S. Constitution or a federal law or treaty, the state law cannot be enforced.

Is it too late to get your money back from that civics class?

 

[HempKat]

From the bls site you just linked to:

"Job growth was widespread in the private
sector, with large employment gains in professional and business
services, leisure and hospitality, and manufacturing. Government
employment changed little over the month."

"Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 243,000 in January. Private-
sector employment grew by 257,000, with the largest employment gains
in professional and business services, leisure and hospitality, and
manufacturing. Government employment was little changed over the
month. (See table B-1.)"

and on and on in excruciating detail...

Yes but that's just one month. Keep in mind before we get on the surplus side we first need to restore the 8 million or so jobs lost while at the same time adding 150K jobs per month on top of that to keep up with population growth. One good month is not enough. The most likely reason for the gains reported in January was that it was the Holiday season those reports reflected and as someone pointed out it'll be interesting to see what February's numbers look like after all the seasonal help should have been laid off.

 

[headband 707]

Yes I read your link however I felt it distorts the facts much the same way people here distort the facts. Then again maybe that's why people here distort them, they read things like this and believe it to be truth and never once consider the political agenda of the news source since it agrees with their personal views. That's why mainstream media is so fucked up because you have a whole bunch of sources that are reporting from the far left perspective, a whole bunch reporting from the far right and very few reporting from a purely factual perspective.

As to the second part of your question no I do not know specifically how hard the government makes it to pass regulations but that is irrelevent to the point I was making. It was suggested that one is not allowed to make their own liquor or grow their own tobacco which is false. What isn't allowed is for individuals who do make their own liquor or grow their own tobacco, to go out and distribute it. To do that one must submit themselves and their product to the Government's regulatory process. Same is true for most anything though especially when dealing with things meant for human consumption. So to spell it out in simple terms I'm saying legalization will not prevent people from being able to grow just from being able to grow and deal and really it won't be legalization that prevents them but rather regulations designed to protect consumers from people who only care about how much money they can make. Personally I could care less about how tough the regulations might be though because if it does become legal I'll just keep growing for myself like I already do. I'll just not have to always worry about security the way I do now.

I'm just curious, if it does become legal will ATF become ATMF?

Wow Hempcat you have not been watching the same shows I have been watching then and so much for freedom of speech here..lol...
I would also suggest you ask the clubs what they think of Obummer now ,,, Also pick up a Dec 2011 issue of High Times and read what they think about Obama..
The article is from "Normal" I try not to call them crazy,,, I do however call the strong arming Goverment crazy as hell yes bro sorry.. I suggest you also look up L.E.A.P.
"Locking people up for cannabis does not work " This comes from your Gov and Lawmakers...
As far as any regulatory commisions getting involved in cannabis why don't you try talking to wine makers about that one lol.. How is it that Alcohol and Tabacco got passed and not cannabis?
Headband 707

 

[vta]

DEA digging into San Francisco's medical marijuana dispensaries
By: Chris Roberts



The federal Drug Enforcement Administration has asked The City’s Department of Public Health to turn over records for 12 of San Francisco's remaining 21 medical cannabis dispensaries, according to emails obtained by The San Francisco Examiner.

Early casualty: The Mr Nice Guy dispensary on Valencia Street shut its doors after receiving federal warnings of possible property forfeitures and 40-year prison terms.


On Jan. 18 and again Jan. 27, Special Agent David White of the DEA's financial investigative team sent emails to the health department asking for business licenses, health permits, ownership information and yearly inspection forms for the 12 dispensaries.

Last year, White requested information on five other San Francisco dispensaries, issuing a subpoena to obtain private information not normally released via a records request. The landlords of those dispensaries then received letters from U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag, who warned of property forfeiture and 40-year prison terms unless the dispensaries shut down.

All five dispensaries closed, though two have since become delivery-only services.

Health department Deputy Director Colleen Chawla said her agency complied with the DEA’s most recent request.

White did not respond to a request for comment. Agent Casey McEnry, a DEA spokeswoman, said the agency only comments on cases actively in the courts.

On Oct. 7, the four U.S. attorneys for California announced a coordinated, statewide crackdown on what they called the "medical marijuana industry." Since then, hundreds of dispensaries have closed, mostly in Sacramento and San Diego counties. Five have closed in San Francisco, and one in Marin.

Stephanie Tucker, a spokeswoman for The City's Medical Cannabis Task Force, is concerned by the prospect of 12 more dispensaries closing.

"It's a clear indication that Melinda Haag is not using the discretion of her office to go after bad players as stated at her October 2011 press conference,” Tucker told The SF Examiner on Thursday. “Instead, they are targeting the regulated community who operate with a permit, in compliance with state and local laws, transparently and in good standing with The City and their community."

Medical marijuana advocates also are rankled by what they call inaction taken by city leaders.

In 2008, then-Mayor Gavin Newsom sent a letter to members of Congress asking them to intervene in the DEA’s “undermin[ing] of California’s state medical marijuana laws." Newsom's successor, Mayor Edwin Lee, has yet to comment on the crackdown publicly, and on Thursday he did not respond to requests for comment on the health department emails.

The Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in support of dispensaries in the fall, but has not taken action since.

“There’s a definite void in leadership here,” Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, told The SF Examiner on Thursday, adding that federal law enforcement is “undermining the will of the voters” encapsulated in Proposition 215, which legalized marijuana for medicinal use when it passed in 1996.

“I understand this is a radioactive issue for some people, but too bad -- it’s the law of the land,” Ammiano said.

There were 26 dispensaries in San Francisco in October. After The City briefly suspended its permitting process, the Planning Commission is scheduled to hear applications for two new dispensaries at its meeting next week.

San Francisco was the first city in California to license and regulate medical marijuana dispensaries under its Medical Cannabis Act, which became law in 2005. Much of The City’s regulations are stricter than what is allowed under state law.

Dispensaries pay local and state sales taxes. The health department inspects them once a year to ensure that they comply with city and state laws. All of San Francisco’s dispensaries were found to be in compliance during the most recent inspections.

Open and shut


Last month, the DEA asked city officials for information on 12 of San Francisco’s remaining 21 medical cannabis dispensaries. They are:

Good Fellows Smoke Shop, 473 Haight St.

Re-Leaf Herbal Center, 1284 Mission St.

The Green Cross, 1230 Market St.

Grass Roots, 1077 Post St.

Emmalyn’s, 1597-A Howard St.

Bay Area Safe Alternatives Collective, 1326 Grove St.

SF Medical Cannabis Club, 120 10th St.

Waterfall Wellness, 1545 Ocean Ave.

Hope Net, 223 Ninth St.

Valencia Street Caregivers, 208 Valencia St.

Vapor Room, 607A Haight St.

Shambala Healing Center, 2441 Mission St.

Last year, the DEA made similar requests for information on five other dispensaries. Those dispensaries then closed after receiving threatening letters from U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag. Those dispensaries were:

Mr Nice Guy, 174 Valencia St.

Divinity Tree Wellness Co-op, 958 Geary St.

Medithrive, 1933 Mission St.

Market Street Collective, 1884 Market St.

Sanctuary, 669 O'Farrell St.

 

[vta]

now go read this....

http://cannabiswarrior.com/2012/02/10/a-long-walk-off-of-a-short-cliff/

 

[BrnCow]

All the legal med dispensaries should form a law firm and dump money into it for taking the Feds to court (like NORMAL should have been doing) and sue the Feds on so many fronts that they have to drop cannabis to a lower schedule. That way they could be more protected from being ripped by the Feds.

 

[monkey5]

Vta..BrnCow..Wow..nice read!

Vta..BrnCow..Wow..nice read!

All the legal med dispensaries should form a law firm and dump money into it for taking the Feds to court (like NORMAL should have been doing) and sue the Feds on so many fronts that they have to drop cannabis to a lower schedule. That way they could be more protected from being ripped by the Feds.

~~ Vta..BrnCow..Wow..nice read! I believe you are both on to something here! A BIG SOMETHING! As I was reading I thought back all the way to Heavens Stairway..Think about all the information they had from those servers...and why nothing really ever happen from that!?! Thank you for posting that link up for us all to read! That read filled alot of missing pieces into the picture for me!! Big Ups to You Both!! monkey5

 

[dagnabit]

I know what your comment was in relationship to but since the United States is nothing like a virgin and doing things to rebuild the economy and workforce is nothing like unfucking a virgin, your comment still remains riddiculous and has nothing to do with the point being made.

maybe closing the barn door after the horse is out is more apt...

It is specifically stated in the constitution, it's know as the Supremacy Clause and is spelled out in Artical 6 of the Constitution.

yes but at the signing of the constitution we have this...

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses(restrictive clauses meaning to restrict power) should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments(this word means to alter or change by adding to) to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

you see the signers of the constitution at the time of signing expressed a fear of the federal government abusing the articles enumerated in the constitution and amended (changed) it to restrict the federal government. you quote the supremacy clause as if it unamended when plainly that is not the case...

but the issue seems to be you defending the federal government in their usurpation of california's ability to self govern.
am i mistaken?

 

[supermanlives]

almost all are switching to delivery like i said would happen. they prob will actually make more money that way in the end and harder to shut down. i can get weed faster than pizza now delivered if i wanted any.

 

[CanniDo Cowboy]

All the legal med dispensaries should form a law firm and dump money into it for taking the Feds to court (like NORMAL should have been doing) and sue the Feds on so many fronts that they have to drop cannabis to a lower schedule. That way they could be more protected from being ripped by the Feds.

LOL...good idea on a normal & basic business level but unfortunately, the dispensaries are soooo busy trying to stay out of the Fed crosshairs and still compete with each other for the patient dollar, they dont have time to combine forces. Or dont want to. For all of them right now, it's mostly dog eat dog and survival of the fittest. In what other business can claiming; "We're still open!!" be considered good advertisement? LOL Dispensaries, albiet supposedly non-profit organizations, are fighting the age old capitalism game on 2 fronts: Keeping the Fed-wolfs off the front porch while trying to offer its customers a better deal than the dispensary down the street and all the while, secretly hoping the Feds close the competitor down first...Hey, bizness is still bizness, even in this bizness...

On another note, some dispensaries are wisely banding together to take on the Fed-nasties but whatever their outcomes, the lawyers are laughing...all the way to the bank...CC

 

[CanniDo Cowboy]

now go read this....

http://cannabiswarrior.com/2012/02/10/a-long-walk-off-of-a-short-cliff/

Dude, everyone should put down the pipe long enough to read the link...Martin is indeed, the Cannabis Warrior......CC

 

[SeaMaiden]

CanniDo, thanks for getting the thread back on topic. I think that assessment is SPOT ON. Our county's proposed draft permanent ordinance allows for 12 plants/parcel, irrespective of age or sex. The ordinance's proposed enforcement will be complaint-driven, perfect for putting neighbors at odds, or fomenting 'tattling' behavior between neighbors already at odds. And in the meantime! an already budget-short county, an already-slim staff, now get to add yet another duty to their roster. On whose dime, and why?

To take it out of the hands of private individuals.

Which brings up a post of HK's I wanted to address yesterday, but didn't have the chance. Home distillation is not allowed without undergoing a permitting process via the ATF. Another caveat is that the alcohol produced may only be used for fuel. This is at the private individual level, not LLC or other corporate structure that cannot suffer the same penalties an individual may. Home tobacco-growing I could have sworn was relatively tightly restricted in the US until around 2005 or so, but I don't recall where I came across that, only that I was surprised that it wasn't already an avenue available to the average homesteader.

 

[CanniDo Cowboy]

CanniDo, thanks for getting the thread back on topic. I think that assessment is SPOT ON. Our county's proposed draft permanent ordinance allows for 12 plants/parcel, irrespective of age or sex. The ordinance's proposed enforcement will be complaint-driven, perfect for putting neighbors at odds, or fomenting 'tattling' behavior between neighbors already at odds. And in the meantime! an already budget-short county, an already-slim staff, now get to add yet another duty to their roster. On whose dime, and why?

To take it out of the hands of private individuals.

Which brings up a post of HK's I wanted to address yesterday, but didn't have the chance. Home distillation is not allowed without undergoing a permitting process via the ATF. Another caveat is that the alcohol produced may only be used for fuel. This is at the private individual level, not LLC or other corporate structure that cannot suffer the same penalties an individual may. Home tobacco-growing I could have sworn was relatively tightly restricted in the US until around 2005 or so, but I don't recall where I came across that, only that I was surprised that it wasn't already an avenue available to the average homesteader.

Howdy SM...As far as getting back on subject, in regard to the current state of Prop215 affairs, getting off subject is one of our strongest weaknesses. If youre hunkered down in a foxhole and having the living bajeezus shelled out of you, it doesnt matter who makes the shells, or if the folks making the shells are paying the workers a decent wage and whether the worker, in his off time can legally make beer in his basement. All we need to know is why are they shelling and when will it stop. In other words, judging by your thread concerning what's happening in your home town, home distillation is the last thing you should be worrying about. LOL

We can all drag out the constitution and quote amendments till the cows come home. We can even round up the whole current administration and shoot them one by one with our pointed fingers, but in the end, a war is won not all at once but rather battle by battle and by folks like me and you. And in a war such as we face, it starts in our home towns. In the time it would take me to drive to Washington and call out my representatives, it is so much easier and more effective to find the BoS in my hometown and say "Hey asshole...!" Something, judging by your thread, you already know.

So, all that said, we need to understand why we are being "shelled" and when is it going to cease. The first question is obviously easier to answer than the second.

The million dollar question: Why is this happening? Easy answer if you first break down the whole mess by finding the common thread. For us who currently find ourselves in the trenches in our home cities and towns over the Prop215 mess, the common thread is our local leaders and the way they go about doing for us what they think is best but all the while, not knowing or caring what is best because when it comes to Prop 215, they havent got a clue. Sometime back, they, the town Councils and BoS's alike, discovered the mystical and often times magical avenue to harnessing the great Prop 215 threat...wait for it...by using the one power they already possessed. The power to create their own personal zoning ordinances. They arent required to call up the head zoning dude in Sacramento and ask "Hey bro, can we do this, can we do that...?' because each city, town, unincorporated areas etc have their own needs in terms of zoning requirements and are independent of each other. Example: I can put a cedar shake roof on my house in Sac but in Amador, because of the forest and fire danger, no way.

So, even prior to Bach vs Long Beach, city and county Powers That Be got busy ordinancing and zoning the hell out of the Prop 215. In essence, their thinking was if Prop 215 was going to be the pipeline, your local Powers That be, thru ordinances and zoning, would be the valve that controls the flow. Easy peasy. Creating new ordinances and or zoning laws doesnt require a vote by the constituents. All that is required is a down n dirty quick vote behind closed doors. Sure, they are required to hold a public meeting and let the residents trot out their objections but in the end, its usually a done deal before you even get to the podium.

Back vs Long Beach: With the first ruling, all the cities and counties felt they were now safe to begin ramping up their Prop215 zoning and ordinance "creativity". All they had to do to be safe was to wait for a few other cities or towns to take the first goosesteps forward and the rest fell in line. My county (Shasta) was one of the first hogs to the trough. Here and seemingly overnite, the Powers That Think They Be quickly passed ordinances banning indoor growing other than a detached structure which incidently now requires bldg permits and inspections (county/city cha-ching!) and imposed sq footage limitations for outdoor gardens. Not finished, they also decreed that ALL dispensaries in the city of Redding illegal and gave all 30 days to cease and desist. Yes, we trotted out all the "Are you F'n crazy...?" folks at the meetings but the deal was made, long before we got there...

Did your county , my county and all the others just happen to fall in line? Did they all see good in throwing out the baby with the bath water and cut off their own city and county noses to spite the revenue generating faces of the medicine? Personally, I dont think so. I believe there were Federale threats or perks, most likely a combination threat/perk offer they couldnt or shouldnt floating around in the same back rooms that helped influence these massively uniformed, mostly chicken-shit, thumbs in the back Town Councils & BoS's. A sell out conspiracy? Maybe.

Finally, so the Back vs Long Beach is being reviewed. A lot of egg on a lot of appointed and voted in faces. But heres the deal: They already knew this could happen. But, because the ordinances and zoning laws were already put in place and even though they may be invalid, it can take several years to rescind. in the meantime...your town and my town...still has control of the pipeline.

How do we make the shelling stop? One city at a time, one town at a time and by folks like you. People who are willing to take their voted in representatives to task. The paper tigers who have forgotten who they serve. In the end, its not the Powers That Be who call the shots...It's We The People. You and yours have my admiration, gratitude and mucho respecto....CC

 

[SeaMaiden]

I concern myself with issues such as home distillation because they bring us back to the exact same concept--activities in which no victims are created being made illegal, and the subsequent substances created from such activities in relation to aforementioned activities. There is also another strong similarity in that hard liquor ingestion is an individual choice, and my suggestion is that as that was taken out of individual hands by the government, so may cannabis cultivation and acquisition (via MMJ protocols).

And so, that is why I concern myself with these other issues. It's just like Prop 8 and anti-miscegenation laws, they are analogous to each other for the basic premises and ideology that goes behind these legal concepts. They are further similar to our situation because the act of consuming cannabis, in and of itself, creates no victim(s), yet is generally illegal in the majority of instances.