Feds reply to Cali Prop 19

[Preacher]

Apparently fear mongering is the last stance of the unsubstantsiated.... at least on IC.

ABSOLUTELY DO NOT smoke pot! Your dick will become so massive that the blood flow to it will sap your mental faculties and you'll kill virgins via internal bleeding!

 

[mean mr.mustard]

I thought there was a reason this thing keeps getting tangled in my bike chain....

 

[Neo 420]

This is a interesting article....

The Obama administration drastically changed this dynamic with just a slight alteration of criteria for federal intervention with marijuana dispensaries. Eric Holder announced that the federal government will no longer pursue medical marijuana dispensaries or patients unless they violate both federal and state laws. In the case of California, because medical marijuana is legal, federal intervention is no longer allowed in cases where California's medical marijuana laws are not broken. Thus, if California were to fully legalize marijuana, under current policy the federal government would not intervene.

This leaves Republicans in a very tough spot. Small government is the bedrock foundation of the party. However, if a “liberal” state legalizes marijuana, the only tool left to combat the legalization of marijuana is for the federal government to extend power over state government. Obama's actions cannot be criticized as an attempt to “deregulate” marijuana. Instead, it is a triumph of state rights over federal intervention.

More importantly, any attempt to fight state legalization of marijuana through suit automatically goes to the Supreme Court. This creates an opportunity to strike down previous legislation criminalizing marijuana as opposed to having the Democrats introduce a bill on the Senate floor to legalize pot.

Consider the alternative strategy of legalizing marijuana on a national level first through Obama. In the current political environment, the leading accusations against the president range from terrorist to Marxist to illegal alien. Imagine the campaigns that could be waged if Obama so much as hinted that he wants to legalize marijuana. Not only would there be insinuations that Obama wants drugs for personal use, but inevitably racial dynamics and stereotypes would enter discourse. It would be the ultimate redirect from the economy. Instead of focusing on regulations and expenditures, emphasis would be on the president who is destroying traditional American values with reefer.

If Obama or the Democrats proposed legalization, all the Republicans have to do is have several governors or senators who refuse to implement the federal law. This would frame the argument as Obama trying to extend the government's power to regulate what some consider the moral fabric of society. With just a few rhetorical shuffles, Obama's proposal could be linked to general monetary and budget extensions of power. This would be like the Republican's in the 30s arguing against the New Deal as a whole by linking it with a government proposal to force states to legalize prostitution.

http://progressive.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/article.php?article_id=339

I found this through a fellow icmagger...

 

[zenoonez]

Hey as long as we keep borrowing money from China they will never run out of resources, but then again we'll make great pets. we'll make great pets.

What is gonna happen when China decides to collect all the trillions we owe them?

Then we definitely won't have any weed to smoke my brothers & sisters.

China calling our debts would be like cutting their own throat. We need a change of policy but to think that they have such power over us to is to misunderstand the situation. Their existence is fueled almost exclusively by our demand and their own creation of a middle class. Now the creation of the middle class is in fact an admirable move because it creates a true internal economy which can drive gdp by itself. However, as we have seen with the bleeding dry of American industry it can only carry things so far. Long and short of the matter is that they are riding a bull called growth, a bull whose charge is starting to slow and if it slows too much their bubble may be the next one to burst. Speculation in China has led to more empty housing than in the state of California. It is a good thing that our banks were so leveraged into our own real estate market because honestly if theirs fell and we were similarly invested we would be bleeding from our eyes and it could have been the end of the financial world as we know it. But hey I guess their is still time for all those investment bankers to think that the slowing growth in China and the potential for them to have a prime mortgage crisis rather than a subprime one presents a win win opportunity in that they will create the funds, then bet against them and win either way coming and going. Oh well lets "make" some more money with the crackerjack street game. It is has worked up until now.... right? That shrinking middle and upper class aren't bad signs. I mean hell, everyone was poor before we enacted antitrust legislation.... oh wait.. that wasn't good either. Really I am just rambling on now..... ::Rant Over::

 

[Baba Ku]

It seems to me that the majority of canna backers fail to see just what side of the political spectrum will ultimately triumph, and will in the end be the champion of individual rights, freedom, and liberty.

They keep feeding themselves heaping loads of bullshit and licking the plate. All the while throwing rocks at those who actually are concerned about their having the freedoms they seek.

It's bizzarro world...and I can only hope that our community opens up it's collective eyes one day and sees the lies and bullshit for what it really is.

 

[zenoonez]

It seems to me that the majority of canna backers fail to see just what side of the political spectrum will ultimately triumph, and will in the end be the champion of individual rights, freedom, and liberty.

They keep feeding themselves heaping loads of bullshit and licking the plate. All the while throwing rocks at those who actually are concerned about their having the freedoms they seek.

It's bizzarro world...and I can only hope that our community opens up it's collective eyes one day and sees the lies and bullshit for what it really is.

The problem is the two party system ultimately. Neither party truly represents freedom. I mean look at the patriot act for instance. The Republican party used to be a rights based party now they truly stand for nothing. I mean they don't stand for fiscal responsibility (see Bush administrations spending habits), they don't stand for privacy and individual freedoms (see patriot act and a whole slew of poorly conceived laws), and they sure as shit don't stand for morality (see torture and rendition programs). Now this isn't to start a political war of words with anyone, so lets take a look at the democrats. They don't stand for true property ownership ie property rights (see imminent domain used in cases where the need was far from imminent), they don't stand for reason or personal freedoms (see smoking bans and banning of clove cigarettes), and they surely don't stand for more efficient government. So really is there a choice that can be made that truly represents the Barry Goldwater republican these days? Surely some of those libertarian minded Tea Party candidates must be right? I am sure some are, however, when held against the patchwork of what we think of as American law culture and the governmental responsibility, many Tea Partiers begin to look just a hair or two short of a full mental breakdown. They propose many things that originate from their philosophical ideologies that when put into law would fundamentally change the way the country works or more to the point wouldn't work. While I think our only logical choice is to begin to move toward the libertarian point of view myself, I am not sure I could find myself voting for any libertarian I have seen speak as of this point. So smokers and really all Americans because the other two parties have really made a mockery of the system for a while now, have a real challenge ahead of them, weed through or mold the Tea Party into something which can be introduced to the political power structure without blowing it apart like a bomb or continue the status quo of voting for two parties who are so similar yet so different that we are in fact voting for differing ways of running the country. We are indeed lazy my friends...

 

[igrowone]

Prop 19 and Constitutional Law for Dummies (and DEA Administrators)

by Dan Riffle
October 13, 2010

There’s been a great deal of chatter recently about what the federal government can or will do if Californians wisely pass Proposition 19 in a few weeks (read up here and here for example). President Obama has several choices, but the one I want address here is the one recently urged by nine former DEA heads (pdf): for the feds to sue California in an attempt to declare the law null and void under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution because it violates the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). I have yet to see a more than perfunctory analysis of such a scenario, so I thought I’d post a little introductory Constitutional Law lesson for our curious readers.

Article VI, Section 1, clause 2 of the Constitution says “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; … Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” In short, if state law conflicts with a constitutionally valid federal law, the state law is void. Now for starters, not even Supreme Court justices will agree on what the CSA can constitutionally prohibit. At least one justice will tell you a law prohibiting the intrastate cultivation and consumption of marijuana (at least for medical use) isn’t constitutional in the first place. But since a majority on the Court has already said Congress has authority to regulate even intrastate marijuana cultivation, does that mean Prop 19 would be void? Hardly.

The legal term for this analysis is “preemption” – does federal law preempt state law? There are two ways this can happen, express or implied. Express preemption is when federal law expressly says that it preempts state law (example) – the CSA does not. The second is implied preemption, and there are multiple versions of implied preemption. First is when federal laws and regulations are so comprehensive that they intend to “occupy the field” and leave no room for the states to regulate. The second is when there is a direct conflict between state and federal law, so that one law forbids something the other requires, or visa versa. Fortunately, section 903 of the CSA speaks directly to this question:



As you can see, the CSA itself says explicitly that it doesn’t “occupy the field.” That’s why in addition to federal laws on marijuana possession, every state in the country has its own laws, most of which differ from one another and federal law. So the question is whether there’s a “positive conflict” between federal law and Prop 19 — does the proposition require something that the CSA forbids? Late night punchlines notwithstanding, smoking marijuana will not be mandatory in California if Prop 19 passes. And Prop 19 doesn’t forbid anything the CSA requires.

There’s one final wrinkle though. A state law can conflict with federal law if it creates an obstacle to accomplishing the goals behind federal law. There’s some question as to whether this form of preemption even applies since one could argue the language of section 903 limits the analysis to direct, positive conflicts (and at least one court agrees with this interpretation). But let’s assume for argument’s sake that it does apply. Some will argue that a state making marijuana legal under its own laws frustrates Congress’ intent to control (by prohibiting) marijuana possession and use. Does that mean California has to keep marijuana illegal? No. A separate line of cases says the feds cannot “commandeer” state governments by telling them what they can and cannot do. In other words, the federal government cannot force California to keep marijuana illegal under state law or enforce federal law.

So what does all this mean? Without question, California can simply remove its criminal laws concerning the possession, cultivation, and use of marijuana, which Prop 19 would do. Then, cities and the state would be free to decide whether to tax and regulate marijuana distribution. Whether and how states or municipalities can enact regulations concerning sales and use of marijuana is another question, but the court decisions on similar issues are encouraging. Decisions in two California cases have found that federal law doesn’t prevent cities and counties from licensing medical marijuana dispensaries and that federal law doesn’t preempt the issuance of patients’ and caregivers’ ID cards. But suffice it to say, anyone claiming Prop 19 will just be void anyway because it conflicts with federal law is, at best, grossly oversimplifying matters. More likely, they’re just flat out wrong, and running scared now that it’s becoming clear what a failure marijuana prohibition has been.

The bottom line is this: California voters have a very real opportunity on November 2 to finally start unwinding marijuana prohibition, and nothing in the Constitution says otherwise.

(Thanks to Karen O’Keefe, MPP’s director of state policies, for her assistance.)

thank you for this excellent summary of some of the legal issues
i'd love to see 19 pass if for no other reason than to watch it move through the federal court system

 

[BigBudBill]

remember prop 215...

"Federal officials last week vowed to pursue California physicians who recommend marijuana for their patients. Doctors could be excluded from the Medicare and Medicaid programs, lose their licenses to prescribe approved drugs, or face criminal prosecution, U.S. Atty. Gen. Janet Reno warned."

give it a few yrs. same old song and dance.

after 215 passed:

First they went after the growers...that didn't work.
Then they went after the doctors....that didn't work.
Then they went after the patients...that didn't work.
Then they went after the dispensaries...that didn't work neither.

Almost 15 years after 215, I can now drive 5 minutes from my house and be at 1 of 10 dispensaries, where there were ZERO 15 years ago, ZERO 10 years ago,ZERO 5 years......and ZERO even 2 years ago.

Expect a similar pattern. A few cowboy sheriffs will force these issues into court and in a few years all this will work itself out. In the mean time, if 19 passes,watch the fun as some sheriffs confront users and some sheriffs confront the feds!

 

[kmk420kali]

Too many ppl pee their pants, at the mention of the DEA--
Grow a pair and realize that FIGHTING for Freedom is not a new thing--

 

[Mr Celsius]

.

 

[vta]

Sorry but people should be scared of opening a business, growing thousands of plants, making tons of money and then getting raided by the DEA. They will be in jail for a good majority of their lives.

Jail scares me.

The average citizen shouldn't be scared, as they are off the radar. But the major producers and movers will be harassed and arrested. They busted how many MMJ dispensaries? That was medical, which had backlash from society.

Whats worse looking to the average american (majority): Bust sick people and taking medicine or busting some pothead hippy looking from being high?

Obviously busting medicinal people. That's why the medical busts weren't as successful.

I don't care if you believe me or not, just don't expect sympathy for the large growers from the average american.

nobody here wants ANYBODY to go to jail for pot. But legalization has to start somewhere...and I don't see that happening at the Fed level.

 

[lvclosetgrower]

Not really suprised by the feds decision. Did people really think they would stop going after med patients yea that would be the day just stay low key and ya wont be entangled in the federal drag net.

 

[SCF]

After 19 passes we will see allot more of your grows being jacked either by DEA or rippers. With all these new growers it wont be hard to find someones backyard grow. If we try to protect our grow then we get put away for what ever we did to the person you caught. I see this a very bad thing and we will see this.

nothing changes with prop 19, rule number 1. dont ever tell anyone, rule number 2, dont ever tell anyone about your grow!

I will still always follow this rule, untill it gets to a point where majority of people are growing at least on in there backyard. I bet some people will grow it, just because its a pretty plant. Imagine that!!! And how the hell is the DEA or Rippers going to increase? When we have more grows now being illegal, than ever before, and they are still ripping, and raiding us? as medical patients? How is prop 19 different?

Second amendment was put in place to protect our rights to bare arms regardless. Not that i condone ANY violence.

Also, Camera set up is cheap. You can now be a Law Abiding Citizen. And if someone robs you, you can record them, and prosecute them! As thats a couple of felonies right there!!!!

Thats just more Fear based propaganda. Dont be afraid. Fight For Your Rights!!!!!!

 

[Hammerhead]

my comment was more geared towards the rippers then DEA. We all are going to see allot more people being ripped off. The gangs are lazy. Some will grow there own but I see many just walking there streets and hopping the fence into your yard to have a look see. Backyard grows will be a big target for them. Until everything settles down we will see some people busted by DEA. Just like 215 we made it legal but our friends still get busted for it. Its been 15 years for 215 and I still see good people being harassed or arrested for its use. It's going to be along time before I see anyone growing without using the same security measures they have been. I have very little faith in our gov and like I said I cant wait to see what happens.

 

[SCF]

my comment was more geared towards the rippers then DEA. We all are going to see allot more people being ripped off. The gangs are lazy. Some will grow there own but I see many just walking there streets and hopping the fence into your yard to have a look see. Backyard grows will be a big target for them. Until everything settles down we will see some people busted by DEA. Just like 215 we made it legal but our friends still get busted for it. Its been 15 years for 215 and I still see good people being harassed or arrested for its use. It's going to be along time before I see anyone growing without using the same security measures they have been. I have very little faith in our gov and like I said I cant wait to see what happens.

agreed. If this passes, i bet we will see at least 2 states as of next election voting to do the same thing! Domino Effect right?



SCF

 

[Herborizer]

my comment was more geared towards the rippers then DEA. We all are going to see allot more people being ripped off. The gangs are lazy. Some will grow there own but I see many just walking there streets and hopping the fence into your yard to have a look see. Backyard grows will be a big target for them. Until everything settles down we will see some people busted by DEA. Just like 215 we made it legal but our friends still get busted for it. Its been 15 years for 215 and I still see good people being harassed or arrested for its use. It's going to be along time before I see anyone growing without using the same security measures they have been. I have very little faith in our gov and like I said I cant wait to see what happens.

This will bake your noodle.

Will we see more rippers? Or more people willing to actually report rippers?

Will we see more Cannabis use? Or will more people be willing to admit they use it?

 

[BigBudBill]

Sorry but people should be scared of opening a business, growing thousands of plants, making tons of money and then getting raided by the DEA. They will be in jail for a good majority of their lives.

Jail scares me.

The average citizen shouldn't be scared, as they are off the radar. But the major producers and movers will be harassed and arrested. They busted how many MMJ dispensaries? That was medical, which had backlash from society.

Whats worse looking to the average american (majority): Bust sick people and taking medicine or busting some pothead hippy looking from being high?

Obviously busting medicinal people. That's why the medical busts weren't as successful.

I don't care if you believe me or not, just don't expect sympathy for the large growers from the average american.

Just like the nos side uses fear....
The yes side has common sense,science and facts

Paul Armantano-
"Seventy-eight years ago this November, Californians overwhelmingly voted for the repeal of a morally, socially, and economically failed public policy – alcohol prohibition. Voters did not wait for the federal government to act; they took the matter into their own hands. And they will likely do so again this November."
From:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...an-that-california-voters-have-to-do-the-same

Fuck Holder.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Just like the nos side uses fear....
The yes side has common sense,science and facts

PLEASE don't drag this back out of the dungeon.

There is fear, common sense, science, and facts on all sides of the table.

To say there are only two ways to look at this is so far out there I wouldn't doubt you have ice on your eyebrows.

 

[SCF]

PLEASE don't drag this back out of the dungeon.

There is fear, common sense, science, and facts on all sides of the table.

To say there are only two ways to look at this is so far out there I wouldn't doubt you have ice on your eyebrows.

Have not seen much FACTS presented from the no side. But OK! If you consider opinion, exaggeration, and what iffs, facts. then i guess.

SCF

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Pigs still raid dispensaries.

Fact #1.

The system works.

Opinion #0