Official DEA Statement on Medical Marijuana

[SmokeyHarvest-N]

.. They tried to put expiration dates on boxes of bullets!!! Get caught with expired bullets and it's a federal offense!!! FUCK THAT! That tells me they don't want us able to protect ourselves from them... Look at what happened in Iran last year and the woman named "Neda" ...

and what do you think they have been doing to your 'self sufficiency' by making all food go through their dispensaries?
the 'agenda' is to control all of us, not picking on the mmj users per se. if you want to survive the coming atrocities you had better be able to grow your own food, hunt for game, do without gasoline or electricity, besides being able to defend you and yours from theives who would take what they need with force.
The dea is an illegal entity created to enforce unjust laws, laws even the government admits are not working!
stock up now on ammo, dried goods, water, fuel, batteries, and whatever else makes your life worth living. you won't have time but for one crop a year, if that.
jeez peeps, wake the fuck up!!!

 

[kmk420kali]

Smokey, I cannot PM you yet, so let me answer you here...about the firearm at a grow thing--
It is not a Felony if you are 215 compliant...therefore there is no crime--
Sure, Feds could still do it...but could you point me to any cases of DEA busting small home grows??
Hope that helps--

 

[David762]

That's a good question.

That's a good question.

my question is; if i'm growing my own medically now and following state law

can i own a gun?

On the Federal BATF firearm purchase form, there is a question regarding the use of marijuana, not hard drugs like meth or heroin, but marijuana. It looks like the entire Federal government has been infested with the same tyrannical Prohibition 2.0 mindset regarding cannabis. Maybe they want you to get your firearms from your cannabis dealer as well. I bet the cartels have all manner of "fun toys" that go bang available for sale.

This is not about an arcane prohibition of which cannabis had inadvertently gotten caught up in -- cannabis and all the "little people" that use it have always been the target. J Anslinger targeted uppity Hispanics and blacks for suppression of their civil rights and freedoms. And after 73 years of Prohibition 2.0, the war against (people)drugs still focuses on stripping all citizen rights for a plant that they know is harmless and medically useful.

This is the USA, but it is still fascism and a Gestapo police state.

 

[David762]

WTF? I believe I know what you've been smoking!

WTF? I believe I know what you've been smoking!

Seems like the DEA gets the hit from the MMJ community when in fact, they are just agents doing their job. This is a misunderstanding that everyone in this community seem to possess. Although the DEA investigate and plan raids, they are merely puppets in American politics. I know its painful to see someone terminally ill or a friend to be racked up by these agents. And I feel the same as everyone here, but I'm just telling you guys the reality of things.

Do you guys actually think the DEA has the power to just simply stop the raids? NO. Instead of setting focus on the agency, its the high end policy makers and those that have billions of dollars invested into the tobacco and drug industry that put all this into place.

There is just too much money at stake in those industries. Politicians and investors will do everything in their power to lobby against us, and again, it will be just an endless cycle. Best thing to do is to consult and push our policy makers to give us our state rights. As for federal laws, I don't see anything great happening until they remove THC as a Schedule I drug.

But it would appear that you have been drinking somebody's Kool-Aid as well. The DEA does have a choice whether or not to participate in local drug interdiction raids, and they invariably choose to do so. The bottom line is the bottom line -- asset forfeiture statutes generate 100's of Billions USD. And while local/state regulations may designate how those assets are handled, the Feds have no such restrictions -- that's why they go on these raids. Wake up and smell the corruption.

 

[Rusty420]

so guys, is it now a common belief that we will be shipped off to the FEMA camps??

 

[David762]

I would tend toward "deadly force" for intruders.

I would tend toward "deadly force" for intruders.

Wow, thats fucking sweeeet! So in response we get a "half" empty promise, instead of a completely empty promise... Makes me wonder, was there a press conference surrounding the response, with a couple dea and presidential officials smiling and shaking hands, like they just saved the world with a fucking "memo"? So I was told once when protecting your home, under CO's make my day law, you MUST use deadly force when doing so. This came from a former county sheriff, and when he told me this, he said using a bat to smash someone's head in or cutting off a limb with a sword or knife is not technically "deadly force" and could result in assault w DW charges coming about. So my confusion then is this, do I protect my home with "deadly force" (i.e gun)? or do I use a bat to protect my small medicinal grow, to avoid the whole "gun in grow" cartel, mafia, "most dangerous" man alive title for having a gun to protect my home and my medicine...
I really like how they gave marijuana top billing and individual mention for the "dangerous" drug statement... Fuck the DEA, and the gov't officials who pull the strings attached to each n every one of them puppets... We all have choices, so do those DEA agents, and all I have to do is turn on the TV to see what the choice has been to date... I am pro guns at any event that the real criminals bring guns to (uniformed, or street criminals), My grandpa told me never to bring a bat to a gunfight...

But when it comes to a storm-trooper Gestapo police/DEA invasion, a firearm is not the real answer, but claymores and firearms are -- just not enough firepower otherwise. But that's just me talking shit.

 

[krunchbubble]

Smokey, I cannot PM you yet, so let me answer you here...about the firearm at a grow thing--
It is not a Felony if you are 215 compliant...therefore there is no crime--
Sure, Feds could still do it...but could you point me to any cases of DEA busting small home grows??
Hope that helps--

i think your mistaken here.......

i didn't have any guns, i had a billy club next to my bed and got charged with a felony, non fed case......

i could only imagine what would i be charged with if i had a gun.......

 

[kmk420kali]

i think your mistaken here.......

i didn't have any guns, i had a billy club next to my bed and got charged with a felony, non fed case......

i could only imagine what would i be charged with if i had a gun.......

Yeah bro, they charge you with it, but if, in Court, it ends up being no felony for the grow and possession charges...they would have to drop the charge...on a firearm--
Unfortunately for you...a Baton is the same as Nun-chucks here in Cali...meaning, unless you are a registered security officer, or some type of LEO...they are illegal-- (They charged you with it as a Felony, not "Possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a Felony", because it is illegal in itself) Correct me if I am wrong--
I got busted with one myself...years ago-- It was dropped in a Plea tho--

 

[krunchbubble]

Yeah bro, they charge you with it, but if, in Court, it ends up being no felony for the grow and possession charges...they would have to drop the charge...on a firearm--
Unfortunately for you...a Baton is the same as Nun-chucks here in Cali...meaning, unless you are a registered security officer, or some type of LEO...they are illegal-- (They charged you with it as a Felony, not "Possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a Felony", because it is illegal in itself) Correct me if I am wrong--
I got busted with one myself...years ago-- It was dropped in a Plea tho--

you right......

it is actually one of those batons that you crack a fish over the head with to kill em.......

such bullshit, thought i would arm myself without a gun while sleeping, guess the cops want you to die or get beat the fuck up in a home invasion.....

 

[Yes4Prop215]

there is no scum greater than the DEA, they are an enemy to the common people. they opress, steal, and lie as part of their daily business. they have been involved in some of the most crookers conspiracies in our nations history. they helped the CIA distribute nicaraugua's cocaine during the contra war, they used inner city gangs as their pawns to funnel money to illegal wars.

they continute to lie and scare the general public into thinking they serve a purpose. they have both their hands in our pockets, one taking our tax dollars and the other plain robbing us.

In order for the DEA to get back to basics, they have to stop this war on america nonsense. stop raiding local drug users and dealers over petty amounts of drugs. most DEA agents should be shifted to the mexican border to help fight the cartels instead.

Also, its up to the courts to help stop the DEA. the state courts in CA are sending the rigt message by dropping many growing cases here. the DEA will be less likely to raid people knowing the charges wont stick. if more courts started turning down these bullshit attacks on MMJ the dea is gnna eventually have to go catch real criminals instead.

 

[Yes4Prop215]

i think your mistaken here.......

i didn't have any guns, i had a billy club next to my bed and got charged with a felony, non fed case......

i could only imagine what would i be charged with if i had a gun.......

i did a bit of research..the firearm statute only allies if their is a felony. so felony distribution of marijuana combined with a gun would be bad.

but a state legal grow is not a felony in the first place..unless the feds picked it up.

if you keep your plant numbers small you might be able to own a gun, make sure its legally registered.

i know guys who have been busted with grows and guns and the gun charges never developed.

now if its an illegal firearm thats not registered...you are screwed.

 

[Yes4Prop215]

Sorry guys. NO you can not own a firearm if you use illegal substances, in which Marijuana is, according to the US Federal Government. When you go to buy a weapon you're specificaly asked if you use illegal drugs such as MMJ. If you check the box yes you WILL be denied the purchase. Therefore, it is illegal to posses a firearm if you hold a Medical Marijuana card / referal...

Don't kid yourself. If your caught you get charged with felony firearms possesion on top of the illegal MMJ charges. It doesn't matter if the guns in the home and the grows in a shed. You can either have guns and no bud or bud and no guns period!

I.R......

on that form, federally, yes you are an unlawful user of marijuana. but you can just mark no and face perjury instead. i marked NO and i own 5 firearms. i keep them in a house 40 miles away from my grow...even though i stil keep my glock handy. i figure im not gonnna gamble with my life versus extra time. if they knock on the door, im gonna hide it as best i can and hope they dont find it. its legally registered and my grow is within state limits so i dont see a problem. Fuck the feds, under state law im a LAWFUL user of marijuana, so im marking NO to that question and getting my AR15..

many courts in the bay area are flooded already....even an illegally owned gun isnt giving that much time these days. friend was busted with 300 plants and a gun...they simply took the gun and charged with felony cultivation because the shotty was registered. and another friend was caught carrying an illegal revolver during a traffic stop...both already have 5 year probation no time plea deals before even going to pretrial. they DAs have much more serious shit to worry about, like guys caught shooting and assaulting people....both are probably gonna lose their 2nd amendment rights however...and will have to buy illegal guns if they wish to be armed and risk more time.

now if you live in a strict county that is known for by the book prosecution, it might be best to just leave the grow ungaurded...invest money in security bars and remote IP cameras, and keep the guns somewhere else like your law abiding family members house.

 

[kmk420kali]

it is actually one of those batons that you crack a fish over the head with to kill em.......

If you can prove that it was Marketed as that, you should be able to beat it-- Fishing gear is legal--
It is like those brass knuckles they sell in cheap mags..."Actual Size brass Paperweight"--

 

[salbahe]

The US will always have a war on this and a war on that. Too much cash is involved. Cash it needs to bankroll their agenda for the world. Whatever that is.

 

[MCI]

Isn't it amusing how they choose to ignore the fact that the Federal Government has been growing and providing medical marijuana to patients since the 70's and still doing so up to now?

 

[Thundurkel]

so guys, is it now a common belief that we will be shipped off to the FEMA camps??

Not something to poke fun at dude the Holocaust happened to normal working people just like us. Look at what happened to American Japanese people during WW2 it doesn't take much to declare us "citizens" as "terrorists" ESPECIALLY these days and have our rights stripped from us.

 

[Thundurkel]

I also believe if you are all legal with the state having your card and not over your limits on plants with a registered handgun or shotgun for home protection you should be fine(just cuz I feel it should be that way don't mean it is though). Now if you have a bunch of odd shit like 4 glocks a desert eagle 50 cal a ar15 a ak47 and a sawed off shotty that's just all bad and doesn't make us MMJ users wanting to protect themselves from thieves look very good at all..

 

[Thundurkel]

Feds don’t care if Calif. voters legalize.

Feds will still enforce its marijuana laws even if Calif. voters legalize.

The U.S. government will “vigorously enforce” federal laws against marijuana even if voters next month make California the first state to legalize pot, states Attorney General Eric Holder.

Holder’s stern warning, contained in a letter to ex-federal drug enforcement chiefs, was his most direct statement yet against Proposition 19,as it sets up another showdown with the people of California over marijuana when Prop 19 passes next month.

Prop 19 is currently leading in the polls, the letter also raised questions about the extremes of which federal drug agents would be allowed to go into residential communities across the state to catch small-time users and dealers.

When Prop 19 passes in November, the state would regulate recreational pot use. Adults 21 and over will be able to possess up to one ounce of the drug and grow small gardens on private property. Local governments would decide whether to allow and tax sales of the plant.

Eric Holder clearly emphasized that the Justice Department will remain committed to enforcing the Controlled Substances Act in all states.

“We will vigorously enforce the CSA against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law,” he wrote.

Medical marijuana advocates and scientific experts were skeptical, saying there was little the federal government could do to slow the march to legalization.

Holder also stated that legalizing recreational marijuana would be a “significant impediment” to the government’s joint efforts with state and local law enforcement to target drug traffickers, who often distribute cannabis alongside cocaine and other drugs as well as “significantly undermine” efforts to keep California cites and towns safe.

Meanwhile in Los Angeles County, city officials have aggressively moved forward to terrorize a multitude of medical patients and their dispensaries. on an explosion of medical marijuana dispensaries, vowing that they would still assist the federal government in drug investigations regardless of what the people of California demand.

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca and Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley said that when Prop 19 passes, it would be unenforceable because it is trumped by federal laws that prohibit marijuana cultivation and possession.

“We will continue as we are today regardless of whether it passes or doesn’t pass,” Baca said.

Gubernatorial candidates – Democrat Jerry Brown and Republican Meg Whitman – who both publicly oppose Prop 19 declined comment.

The ex-Drug Enforcement Administration chiefs sent a letter to Holder in August calling on the Obama administration to sue California if Prop 19 passes.

California prevents police from enforcing the stricter federal ban on marijuana. The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government cannot order local law enforcement to act in its behalf to enforce its laws. Unfortunately, local law enforcement is more than willing to “assist” the federal government in it’s gestapo style raids on medical patients.

“It’s quite apparent that the fight over marijuana legalization will more that likely end up the same way medical marijuana did”, according to experts.
In 1996, Californians approved their first-in-the-nation medical marijuana, and the Clinton administration officials vowed a harsh crackdown. But over a decade later, California’s billion-dollar medical marijuana industry is flourishing faster than ever and spreading to states across the nation.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized, blogs, caregivers, recent-news. Bookmark the permalink.

 

[Thundurkel]

See that right there tells you it don't matter what we vote those in power will not listen, is this not the signs of tyranny???

No matter what Californians decide they say!!! I'm not for the bill but still that's a big FUCK YOU to the people.....

 

[vta]

The Feds can't stop 19


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:

No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any State law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together.

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.)