legal argument against california dispensary shutdown

[jakeh]

There are several threads going on what is happening in California. What I would like to focus on is the federal prosecutors arguments as well as the IRS rulings against medical marijuana. As stated in this thread https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=222498 the Feds are distributing marijuana for medical reasons to 4 patients. The Feds pay the University of Mississippi $1.2 million a year to grow and distribute across state lines marijuana for medical patients. This fact alone is in total contradiction to marijuana's schedule I status as a nonmedicinal drug. The Feds have been funding the University of Ms since 1968 almost 3 decades prior to California passing Prop 215. The head of the University of Ms's marijuana program (since 1968) is Dr. El-Sohly. He states it has medicinal value for cancer patients but disagrees that a smoked drug is good for anyone as a means of administering the drug. The crux of his research of late has been a safe means of administering marijuana. Leave to the Feds to determine that the best way to administer pot is to shove it up our ass in the form of a suppository. This was not popular so they have gone to a patch. I am getting off point but the whole federal argument is comical. I've got a couple of questions if there are any lawyers or anyone else who cares to answer or discuss:
1. Are the Feds not doing the same thing they are accusing the state of California of doing albeit on a much smaller scale? I realize the Feds are sending their pot to multiple states but again they are setting the precedent that California is only following on a state wide level.
2. The Feds program with the University of Ms is a nonprofit as is the dispensaries they are targeting in California. Is there not a legal argument against their own program they could prosecute along with the dispensaries in California?
3. The California program was a democratically elected one. The Federal program was not one that was voted on by nationwide vote. Wouldn't that suggest California has a more legitimate argument to allow patients to receive marijuana than the one the Federal program runs? The Feds spend $1.2 million a year. The state of California makes millions a year in taxes and employs thousands of people in a very difficult time that are paying taxes as well(state and federal).
I just don't get it. Any thoughts? Anyone,anyone

 

[resinryder]

Damn son. You're acting like something the fed gov does has to make sense. To be taken sarcastically of course.

 

[PoopyTeaBags]

Dude laws dont mean shit to the government...
we are not a democracy.

until people grow some balls nothing is changing... common sense doesnt make any sense to politicians...

 

[supermanlives]

i am suprised it took this long.did you really think they wouldnt try whatever they can to shut dispensaries down. harborside is the snake lets see if its head is cut off. black market is gonna be thriving.

 

[Phillthy]

i like how the feds have collected taxes on drug trafficing (illegal in their eyes).

 

[loyalty7]

state agencies are committing conspiracy, might as well indict everyone...

 

[walt cunningham]

you should definitely get the feds arrested

 

[greenmatter]

$1.2 million to supply 4 patients????????? where do you apply for that job? shit, i'll do it for half

 

[Sam the Caveman]

this whole thing is a shit storm with the federal prosecutors running around with a roll of toilet paper trying to wipe the skid marks off everything. Everyone is laughing at them for being so stupid and yet they think what they are doing is really going to make a difference.

 

[johnnyla]

Harborside Health Center
Statement of Executive Director Steve DeAngelo:

Friday, October 7

Early this afternoon, four US Attorneys held a joint press conference in Sacramento, in which they threatened numerous enforcement actions against medical cannabis providers.

The first and most important thing I would like our patients to know is that Harborside has no intention of closing. Five years ago, the Harborside collective made a commitment to provide the best possible care for medical cannabis patients, and we fully intend to honor that commitment. Unless and until the federal government locks our doors, we will be here to serve you. And then we will pick the locks…

However, it is highly unlikely that Harborside will be a target of federal enforcement. It also appears that individual patients and care givers will not be targeted for enforcement actions.

You may have heard earlier this week that the IRS denied all of Harborside’s standard business deductions (for things like laboratory testing, security, rent, payroll, etc.), on the grounds that we supposedly are a drug trafficking organization. We are of course appealing this inaccurate and unfair ruling, and are confident that it will ultimately be overturned. The legal process in this case is just beginning, and it will probably be several years before it is concluded. In the meantime, Harborside will continue to care for our patients.

I and the Harborside staff thank you for the many expressions of support we have received and for your continued patronage at this critical time. We look forward to serving you for many years to come.
Unlike · · Share · 24 minutes ago

You and 39 others like this.

 

[MIway]

only seems like he caved in for political support... just from the other side of the lines. think this is the answer to the invited white house petitions. law&order conservatives basically said... look, letters & all aren't enough... if u want any chance to make it to a second term, u cull this shit... right now, right here... there is no ambiguity in the law... kill it now... or else. forget about second term leniency... he made his deal. open game for anyone they see fit to go after... anywhere... just smash & grabs w prosecutions for publicity & asset forfeitures. in about 6 months we'll start to hear how the new gov't contracts for more new jails & more new cops are approved... bumping the wackenhut stock. all is right with the world once again.

 

[jakeh]

state agencies are committing conspiracy, might as well indict everyone...

I would have to agree. The whole schedule I classification is a crock. For one branch of the federal government to say it is a schedule I drug (i.e. no medicinal value) while another branch provides the drug as medicine in a manner that is so inefficient it should be criminal is maddening. That being said the definition of a schedule II drug is any drug that has medicinal value but is highly susceptible to abuse like cocaine or opiates. I would agree marijuana could be considered a schedule II drug. The only thing that makes it illegal is it is not classified as a schedule II drug at least as far as the IRS is concerned. If it were a schedule II drug a prescription could be written and not a recommendation. It would be no different than writing a prescription for oxycontin (legally). There are pain clinics all over this country pumping out oxycontin that are causing overdoses every day. Why prioritize dispensaries of a safe drug that has no overdoses vs pain clinics causing 10 deaths (could be considered murders) a day in Florida alone. I wish George Soros would buy the property of one of these clinics and let the Feds try to get past his resources to seize it when they are doing the same thing out of the University of Ms campus all while pain clinics are running amok all over the country killing literally thousands in the 15 years since Proposition 215 was passed in a democratic election. I'm not even talking about alcohol and tobacco. This is beyond insanity.

 

[jakeh]

Here is the information straight from the CDC.
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/pubs/RXReport_web-a.pdf

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

1.2 million a year to supply pot for 4 people?? Where do i sign up!??!

and dont tell me its some super uber grade weed like these clown claim on the g13. ive seen the trash they send to patients. shit is some straight bobby brown dirt mcgirt type shit. they even roll it up with seeds and stems. shit is HORRIBLE.

ill do 10x a better job for half the pay. im not anti government - its just nothing they do is anywhere near what it needs to be.

1.2 million to produce pot for 4 patients
10 million dollars to execute a prisoner

i could do both for under 500 bucks.... just saying.

 

[jakeh]

1.2 million a year to supply pot for 4 people?? Where do i sign up!??!

and dont tell me its some super uber grade weed like these clown claim on the g13. ive seen the trash they send to patients. shit is some straight bobby brown dirt mcgirt type shit. they even roll it up with seeds and stems. shit is HORRIBLE.

ill do 10x a better job for half the pay. im not anti government - its just nothing they do is anywhere near what it needs to be.

1.2 million to produce pot for 4 patients
10 million dollars to execute a prisoner

i could do both for under 500 bucks.... just saying.

They do a lot more than supply 4 patients with pot. Any accredited study on marijuana gets their supply from the University of Ms as well. I had a friend who went there as well as worked on the farm. They have varieties from all over the world that were seized and are tested for potency as well. They do have quality and produce it but they do not handle it well. It's like they run a whole plant through a stump grinder and into a 55 gallon drum. Some workers cuff their pants and slip out with a little of the resin on their hands. The quality is there. The proper handling after harvest is not. As for executing someone the best I've heard is how the Chinese do it. They put the prisoner against a board or tree, shoot them, dig out the bullet from the tree and send the family the bullet with a receipt.

 

[supermanlives]

i have lockpick tools and would be glad to pick the locks for em. they prob will use harborside as an example to everyone. fight on harborside

 

[SeaMaiden]

What exists in our state law (Prop 215) that guarantees anyone the right to a storefront, or even a cooperative or collective? Something is afoot, and I think it's more to do with a chimeric marriage between big ag and big pharma than anything else. Oh, and the prison lobby.

state agencies are committing conspiracy, might as well indict everyone...

It's worse than that. Cats are lying with dogs.

 

[kmk420kali]

What exists in our state law (Prop 215) that guarantees anyone the right to a storefront, or even a cooperative or collective?

It is in SB420--

 

[SeaMaiden]

You're saying that is a portion of SB420 that was retained in the People vs Kelley ruling? I'll have to reread both the SB and the ruling, but as I understand it, and as my own attorney has explained it to me, this is tenuous ground at best (the legality of the groups as I've outlined above), and there has also been a recent state appeals court ruling that specifically disallows cities from giving permits to dispensaries. Let me find that story really quickly for you...

Here we go, yesterday's Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/05/BA261LDSIS.DTL

Cities can't give permits to pot clubs, court says

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Federal law prohibits California cities from issuing permits to collectives authorizing them to supply marijuana to medical patients, a state appeals court has ruled, raising questions about the scope of local regulation of pot dispensaries.

In overturning a Long Beach ordinance, the court said the city went a step beyond California's action in 1996, when state voters eliminated criminal penalties for patients who used marijuana with a doctor's approval.

Deciding not to prosecute someone for drug use doesn't conflict with the federal ban on marijuana possession and distribution, the court said. It also said a city's restrictions on marijuana dispensaries, such as limiting their locations and operating hours, wouldn't violate either federal or state law.

But by issuing permits that let a certain number of pot collectives operate within city limits, the court said, Long Beach has put a stamp of approval on an activity that federal law forbids and is interfering with nationwide drug enforcement.

"The city's ordinance ... goes beyond decriminalization into authorization," the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles said in a 3-0 ruling Tuesday.

Long Beach could appeal to the state Supreme Court or could try to revise its ordinance, either by following the appellate panel's guidelines on regulations or by banning dispensaries altogether. The city attorney's office did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

Medical marijuana advocates said the ruling, if it stands, will set new criteria for the diverse rules on pot suppliers adopted by many cities and counties since California voters approved the law in 1996.

"It makes it more difficult for cities (to regulate), but I don't think it eliminates their authority," said attorney Michael Risher of the American Civil Liberties Union in San Francisco. He said cities could apply health, safety and zoning laws to marijuana collectives.

Although the ruling appears to prohibit local governments from limiting the number of suppliers by issuing permits, a city could largely reach that goal by requiring dispensaries to locate in certain zones and at certain distances from each other, said attorney Ruthann Ziegler, who has represented cities in other marijuana cases.

The Long Beach ordinance limits dispensary locations and operating hours, sets safety standards including laboratory testing of the drugs, and requires dispensaries to pay a nonrefundable application fee of more than $14,000 and an annual renewal fee of at least $10,000 if they win a lottery for a permit.

But Matthew Pappas, lawyer for two patients who challenged the ordinance after their collectives did not qualify for permits, said Long Beach is actually trying to ban medical marijuana collectives. He said one client's dispensary was the target of a raid in May by more than 25 officers who used a battering ram to break down the door.

"Patients don't have any problems with reasonable restrictions," Pappas said. But he contended a local ban on dispensaries would violate federal disability law, a position he argued in another Southern California case now pending before a federal appeals court.

I posit this: if there were a section within whatever had been retained of SB420 applicable to the issue of cities issuing permits, then why didn't the challenging attorneys use that argument, assuming it really has a strong legal basis?

 

[kmk420kali]

You're saying that is a portion of SB420 that was retained in the People vs Kelley ruling?

Yes, only the portions that limit 215, ie: plant numbers, were overthrown--
Legislation can expand on a Voter Initiative, but it can not limit it--