Vote NO to legalize cannabis....Or else

[Captain Ginyu]

So why didn't you guys set it up so regular folks could make a little income from it, instead of just having six measly plants? And don't tell me how you can grow trees. Still only three in flower and 3 in veg. What if a guy wants to keep a dozen of his killer strains? Over just in moms. I could have 60 - 100 plants and just produce enough for me, doesn't mean I'm going bigtime.

As it is, by the time you get a license, a retail location and a grow location, whatever amenities, your up in the 5 to 6 figure range. And you have to produce 50 pounds a week to pay the bills.

Counts out all the small time growers and only the guys doing their not-really-legal-meds-for-profit grows on a commercial scale can afford to get in the game.

Sorry for ranting and showing what could be mistaken for class envy, just having a bad week; my job sucks, my bosses suck, I'm out of weed, my cat died...

The laws are written by people who prioritize the big corporate interests, because they are paid to. This legalization thing in my opinion, is only a drop of water in an ocean of corruption. It may be a move to allow more people to have access, but at what cost? It's a stranglehold for profit that won't be going to mom-and-pop shops, that's for sure. That's why we hear all the time why people are complaining that our Bill of Rights is being torn to shreds, nothing is done right, outageous taxes, loss of jobs, foreclosures, price of gas, and on and on...

 

[Jhhnn]

So why didn't you guys set it up so regular folks could make a little income from it, instead of just having six measly plants? And don't tell me how you can grow trees. Still only three in flower and 3 in veg. What if a guy wants to keep a dozen of his killer strains? Over just in moms. I could have 60 - 100 plants and just produce enough for me, doesn't mean I'm going bigtime.

As it is, by the time you get a license, a retail location and a grow location, whatever amenities, your up in the 5 to 6 figure range. And you have to produce 50 pounds a week to pay the bills.

Counts out all the small time growers and only the guys doing their not-really-legal-meds-for-profit grows on a commercial scale can afford to get in the game.

Sorry for ranting and showing what could be mistaken for class envy, just having a bad week; my job sucks, my bosses suck, I'm out of weed, my cat died...

Colorado's MMJ system of small caregivers/ growers remains intact. I'm unfamiliar with it, but several Icmag members are part of it.

The whole thing changes again in October when retailers are no longer required to grow anything and growers are not required to have storefronts but can rather just sell wholesale to retailers.

Competition among growers will likely be ferocious with tumbling prices. Economies of scale will rule, much as they do in any agricultural market. Smaller growers will need to provide something truly special & therefore more valuable if they're to survive.

Meanwhile, John & Joan Stoner are the big winners. It's not perfect- just orders of magnitude better. There's no downside for the community, but rather an imperfect upside.

Not everybody gets a pony.

 

[Jhhnn]

The laws are written by people who prioritize the big corporate interests, because they are paid to. This legalization thing in my opinion, is only a drop of water in an ocean of corruption. It may be a move to allow more people to have access, but at what cost? It's a stranglehold for profit that won't be going to mom-and-pop shops, that's for sure. That's why we hear all the time why people are complaining that our Bill of Rights is being torn to shreds, nothing is done right, outageous taxes, loss of jobs, foreclosures, price of gas, and on and on...

Please. The right to grow one's own in peace & anonymity obliterates all argument of monopoly. Retailers have to compete with that and with black marketeers as well.

Home growers compliant with plant count limitations have zero risk. Non-compliant growers enjoy radically reduced risk as well. Home growers have no at-home weight limitations at all. The rules have changed, making it extremely difficult for CO authorities to obtain search warrants for what marijuana offenses remain. Truly small growers are no longer the sitting ducks that they once were.

 

[ElusiveQuark]

Reducing the number of people incarcerated for cannabis related crimes is if oar amount importance. IMHO. But I wonder who drafted the relevant legislation in your state? It should have been you it should have been me. I hope everyone read what Sam had to say re: government and big business and their role in the industry. This is a well connected pioneer that I believe offered a little foreshadowing. Take control and put forward a bill, etc that is comprehensive and embodies what we all want. Pass a law no patents on plants. Now that would be something!

 

[bentom187]

Welp, although I don't think this is an issue we should be solving by vote or legislation, these guys are doing a good thing and at least making it stick by reforming themselves. If they would just go a step further end the war on all drugs in all states none of this would be needed.

Breaking News: Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) to Offer Groundbreaking Medical Marijuana Amendment on Senate Floor

Similar Bipartisan Amendment Passed the U.S. House a Few Weeks Ago in Historic Victory

Amendment Seeks to Protect 32 States With Medical Marijuana Laws from Federal Interference


Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) will offer an amendment to a federal spending bill that would prohibit the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from undermining state marijuana laws. The House approved a similar bipartisan measure on May 29th. An amendment prohibiting the DEA from interfering with state hemp production for research purposes also passed the U.S. House. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a similar hemp amendment in committee June 5th that was offered by Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

“The House just made history last month by voting to stop the DEA from interfering with state marijuana laws,” said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. “Now every U.S. Senator has the opportunity to provide relief for the sick and dying – and to be on the right side of history, not to mention public opinion.”

The House medical marijuana amendment was offered by six Republicans and six Democrats: Reps. Rohrabacher (R-CA), Farr (D-CA), Young (R-AK), Blumenauer (D-OR), McClintock (R-CA), Cohen (D-TN), Broun (R-GA), Polis (D-CO), Stockman (R-TX), Lee (D-CA), Amash (R-MI) and Titus (D-NV). 170 Democrats and 49 Republicans voted for the amendment.

A recent Pew Research Center survey found that nearly three-in-four Americans (72%) believe that efforts to enforce marijuana laws cost more than they are worth, including 78% of independents, 71% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans. There is strong support for state medical marijuana programs, with 80% of Democrats, 76% of Independents, and 61% of Republicans supporting the sale and use of medical marijuana in their state.

Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have laws that legalize and regulate marijuana for medicinal purposes: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Ten states have laws on the books or about to be signed into law by their governors regulating CBD oils, a non-psychotropic component of medical marijuana that some parents are utilizing to treat their children’s seizures: Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Today’s news from the U.S. Senate comes at a time when medical marijuana is also the dominant storyline in the final days of New York’s annual legislative session. Governor Andrew Cuomo and State Senate leaders have come under intense scrutiny for blocking the state’s comprehensive medical marijuana legislation, despite overwhelming bipartisan support for it.

“Letting states set their own medical marijuana policy without federal interference is not just the right thing to do – it’s also very popular with voters in both parties,” said Piper. “No American should have to live in fear of arrest and prosecution for following their doctor’s advice. We’re going to make sure voters know which Senators vote to protect their states and which do not.

Here is a look at the vote.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll258.xml

 

[shaggyballs]

Somebody give that man a rep point for all the good info!
Looks like thing are headed in the right direction!

BUT!

Just keep your eyes open!
Stay aware!!!!
shag

 

[ElusiveQuark]

Has anyone actually read the text to this amendment? This has to be the most vague legislation ever drafted. Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the listing of some states and not all states create a Prima Facie violation of the Equal Protection clause? Why not include all states? Congress has that power. Interesting back story is that State of Kentucky tried to import hemp seeds after house passed the earlier hemp bill and the DEA seized the seeds. That seems like a criminal act given the previous passage of the hemp amendment. If Congress cant assert its rights under the law, citizen is totally fucked. DEA dealt it was mighty important to get those beans. Hmmmmmmmm?

 

[ElusiveQuark]

Do you know Michael Taylor?

Do you know Michael Taylor?

Michael Taylor is a name we all should know. Also his work history. I wonder if the head of the DEA plays golf with the head of the EPA. Then they probably go hunting with the Chief Justice. Not many people endure at that level w both a demo and rep boss. This guy may be important. With all the MMJ focus, I lost track of Fracking. Fracking is good, correct? Nothing better than cheap natural gas!?! Just seeing if your paying attention.

 

[ElusiveQuark]

That should have been FDA not EPA.

 

[NYUrbanFarmer]

This is great news!

This is great news!

This is great knews! And this is the first step On a federal Level to gain Marijuana acceptance. Once this passes then there is an opening to change the federal Scheduling of Marijuana. whether we will ever see complete legalization is still unknown but this is certainly a step in the right direction. The only thing I worry about is the feds seeing the money the states are making and see it as a cash crop and take over. Then they'll set all kinds of bullshit regulations and rules on growing and selling and possession just like tobacco!

In my mind the real crime here is knowing marijuana saves lives and doing nothing about it! They should throw half of the DA's office in prison if you ask me.

In growing Cannabis we become truly free.

NYUrbanFarmer

 

[bentom187]

All I have found about the text is this so far.

H.R. 4660Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015

25) Rep. Rohrabacher (R-CA) Amendment #25 – At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

Snip it of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny,it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel. The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational basis (though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for classifications based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate.

The 14th amendment is not by its terms applicable to the federal government. Actions by the federal government, however, that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances, violate the due process of the fifth amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. V.

I suspect the federal supremacy clause makes this moot. Fucking useless document (constitution) ,when it comes to natural rights unless you're a tyrant or a sociopath. You get to do what congress say's making all your rights granted privileges not rights.

So in the end defunding their aggression is not a bad thing.


The Fix Was In From The Beginning

I threw the Constitution in the woods years ago, when I became aware of its true nature as a document empowering government rather than protecting the rights of the people. The historic fact is the Constitution was intended to gut the rights of the people; it was only as an afterthought that the Bill of Rights was tacked on, to placate those who were – rightly, as it turns out – suspicious of what Hamilton & Co. were up to.

The Constitution is all about “Congress shall have power…” and so on. Well, over whom shall it have power? By what authority?

The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, is all about “Congress shall make no law… and “shall not be infringed.” It is a roster of contras with regard to government. An assertion of the positive rights of the individual. It expressed the popular feeling behind the Revolution that was subverted by the Constitution. Read it – the Bill of Rights – and you will immediately notice how it comports with the Declaration of Independence, whereas the Constitution’s enumeration of state power sounds a discordant, reactionary note. Hamilton and Co. were appalled by the freedom briefly enjoyed by average Americans. By the weakness (i.e., its inability to forcibly coerce) of the central government; in particular, its inability to “raise revenue” and impose its will across the land. See, for instance, the so-called Whiskey Rebellion. And so the Hamiltonians wrote the Constitution – without the authorization or consent of “the people,” in secret conclave – for the express purpose of “correcting” the problem, as they saw it, of too much liberty . . . and not enough government.

Still, America remained a relatively free country for several generations after the Revolution due to inertia and the cultural legacy of the Revolution. The Hamiltonians could only go so far. But the passage of the Constitution assured the inevitability of what became explicit – at bayonet-point – in 1865 and subsequently: The central government’s authority is unlimited in principle and the individual has no rights it is bound to respect.

Think about it: Can anyone name even one individual right that the government has not rescinded and turned into a conditional privilege?

We no longer enjoy freedom of speech. Is it necessary to elaborate? At a time when a person must ask permission to be allowed to publicly (and peacefully) express dissatisfaction with the government? When the expression of certain views is sufficient legal warrant to provoke a “visit” – or worse – by armed men who are empowered to kidnap the speaker or writer? When the mere wearing of a T-shirt with “objectionable” slogans or images upon it is regarded by the law as sufficient warrant to “detain” (that is, forcibly assault) a person? What happened to “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting … the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”?

We are not at liberty to choose with whom we associate, even in private. Or do business with. We are subject to arrest and imprisonment if we decline to associate with persons the government decrees we must associate with, or do business without the requisite permissions (such as licenses) and according to the rules laid down by the state. If you are 17 years old, you must attend a government school. You are not at liberty to go to work and support yourself, if that is your wish. It is “against the law.”
Everything – just about – is either “against the law” or requires the state’s permission first.

Our right to be “secure in our persons and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures” is a nullity. There is no place – not even in our homes – that we are not subject to grotesquely unreasonable searches and seizures. Is it necessary to elaborate? At a time when people are being violated in the most degrading way (roadside digital inspection of their body cavities) under color of law? When what would be considered sexual assault if done by any Mere Mundane is sanctified as “reasonable” by the courts? At a time when every single phone call, every single e-mail, is recorded and analyzed by the government? This is “reasonable”? According to the government, which interprets its own powers to suit, it certainly is.

Once, we were free to possess and carry arms. The Second Amendment formally acknowledged this absolute right: “. . .shall not be infringed.” Is it necessary to catalog the infringements we suffer? “Infringe” has become as meaningless as “reasonable.” Or rather, they have both come to mean their opposites in practice. It is a crime in most states merely to carry a firearm not obviously visible (i.e., “concealed,” for which one must posses a permission slip). In some states – and the federal capital itself – it is a felony to possess a firearm, period. So much for “shall not be infringed.”

Americans are subject to being dragooned into the night, held without charge – for years – at the whim of the government. The fact that is has not (yet) been done on a large scale is not relevant. That fact is it could be, at any time – because the authority has been asserted and formalized into “the law” by executive fiat and court sanction (or refusal to not sanction). There is no appeal, no mechanism in law to protect the individual. Merely the hazy recollection that it didn’t used to be that way. Once that fades, the results will be predictable.

We are forced – under threat of lengthy incarceration - to provide evidence the government can and will use to prosecute us as “criminals.” Doubt it? Decline to provide the government with information regarding your business dealings, your assets, your salary – and see what happens.

The onetime right to a trial by jury has been end-run by “administrative” law. Pay up – or else.

So much for the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

We are allowed to own nothing of substance. Our homes and land are functionally owned by the state, which assess us rent in the form of property tax. Fail to pay the rent and you will quickly discover who owns “your” land.

Not even your physical person is your own property. The state owns you. It decrees you may not consume certain substance as this might harm its property. You may not mate or partner with another without permission – or only in certain “approved” ways. The children you produce are not yours to raise. They must be raised as the state decrees, properly “educated” in ways the state approves.

And the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? A sick joke.

What “rights” has the federal government not arrogated unto itself? It forcibly injects itself into the most mundane and minute affairs of individuals; most recently, it has asserted that each of us must purchase health insurance – or else – and will shortly assert its “right” to micromanage our actual “health,” to include our personal habits and recreations – very probably, the opinions we hold.

So much for our rights.

They may continue to exist, of course. But they are not respected.

Just as was intended by the men who wrote the Constitution.

Throw it in the Woods?

 

[Hydrosun]

If cannabis is legal you will not be able to provide yourself with medicine.

If this is the definition of legal, then I need to go back to school. Tomatoes are legal I can grow them for myself, IF cannabis is not treated the same way THEN cannabis is not legal.



Vote or not, but any vote to criminalize your neighbors to one degree or another is not morally valid.

 

[bentom187]

Another write up.

Will Senate Defund DEA Raids?

In the wee hours of Friday, May 30, 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives approved an amendment to an appropriations bill that medical marijuana proponents hope will stop the Drug Enforcement Administration raids of businesses operating legally under state medical marijuana laws.

What the Amendment Says

The full text of the amendment to H.R. 4660 is relatively short:

“
None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

It is similar to an amendment that failed in 2012, except for the longer list of states.

Now it goes to the Senate, where govtrack.us gives it a 28 percent chance of success. There is also a legitimate question about whether it would make much of a difference, since the DEA generally claims that it targets only those who violate state law. Passage of the provision may not actually give owners and investors the security they desire.

But what if it fails? Does the message of failure mean federal enforcement efforts may target legitimate businesses operating within state law? If so, we have a problem. The negative inference should scare the pants off investors and businesses.

Federal Enforcement Priorities

In August 2013, the Department of Justice announced that it would narrow its enforcement focus to eight areas. These included preventing marijuana distribution to minors, cracking down on drugged driving and stopping drug trafficking by gangs and cartels. Many business people found the list reassuring and were consequently blindsided by a swift uptick in enforcement activity against medical marijuana. The link to the announced priorities has yet to be explained.

Recent Raids

In April 2012, federal agents raided Oaksterdam University, (closely linked to Oakland’s Harborside Health Center, one of the largest and most respected dispensaries in Oakland, California), hauling away computers, files and pot plants. In May 2014, The Denver Post reported that DEA agents conducted a door-smashing, SWAT-style raid on four medical marijuana dispensaries in Denver. Some have suggested that, regardless of whether the enforcement activity proves to be justified, the passage of time between the raid and the dismissal of charges is enough to finish off many small businesses.

The Rohrabacher Amendment

We have been here before, but the legal environment for some forms of legalization has changed a lot in the last two years.

Representative Dana Rohrabacher couches his argument in care for the sick. Senator Harry Reid claims a change of heart on the same grounds.

Last September, Senator Patrick Leahy raised the issue of whether it made sense to use federal resources to prosecute the personal or medicinal use of marijuana in states that have made such consumption legal. President Obama has long used much the same argument. Nonetheless, the amendment only has a 28 percent of passing — those are not good odds.

Patients and doctors care about protection for medical marijuana for compassionate reasons; libertarians look at it as a states rights issue. For the industry, it would be better if the excitement were about growing revenues, not about having inventory and bank accounts seized. As the issue moves to the Senate, businesses and investors may want to make their voices heard. The provision may not offer foolproof protection against capricious enforcement, but the alternative is worse.

 

[the gnome]

so Obama's DEA has already conducted their door bustin SWAT raids on 4 pot shops in Denver this year?
Jhhnn was saying a few pages back Obama and the DEA were "staying out of the way" in CO
and what great thing obama was doing?

I'm sure Obama had no idea what was going on and read about in the paper like every one else,
like the time when he read in the news paper the IRS took it upon themselves to punish his "enemies",
what luck they didn't target any liberal orgs supporting him.
AND even tho the head of the IRS had visited him in Person something like 118 times in the white house,
more than any other single person in a 6month period.

AND fast and furious, running guns to the cartels to track where they went,... but never tracked a single one
except the 1 the gun used to kill an American Border Patrol Guard.

AND Benghazi.. wait... he was notified but no one knows where he was afterwards, prolly in bed after an exhausting 18 holes

AND the NSA recording everything every american does electronically..

AND solyndra going bankrupt mere months after receiving OVER a cool 1/2 a billion the top heads that gave piles of cash to Barry's re-election campaign, too bad no one like the DOJ could never figured out what happen to it?

AND the Vets dying because of secret waiting lists and 67,000 others still waiting
but he did know,
it was know about issues of wait time before he took office in 08

THANK GOD he gets the news paper or the most powerful man on earth running the most powerful nation(for now) would be 1 clueless mofo


BTW....
I'd fire those NSA guys,
they're slackin big time getting all that hard intel to barry

 

[NYUrbanFarmer]

Hot off the Press NY legalizes Medical marijuana in vapor and oils

Hot off the Press NY legalizes Medical marijuana in vapor and oils

NY Politics

New York State Reaches Multiple Last-Minute Deals

Agreement Reached to Legalize Medical Marijuana, but No Smoking to Be Allowed



By
Erica Orden
June 19, 2014 3:55 p.m. ET



Senate co-leader Jeff Klein, left, Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver after reaching a medical marijuana pact. Associated Press

ALBANY—Gov. Andrew Cuomo and legislative leaders on Thursday agreed to legalize certain forms of marijuana for patients with a limited range of diseases, capping two decades of efforts around a polarizing national issue.

The deal came during a flurry of last-minute negotiations in the Capitol, as lawmakers and the governor worked to finalize bills before the Legislature goes home for the year. Lawmakers were expected to be voting on dozens of pieces of legislation well past midnight on Friday, including the marijuana bill.

After days of intense negotiations, the medical pot bill was more limited than many lawmakers wanted, after the governor warned he would sign it only with strict requirements.




More
Albany Reaches Deal on Teacher Evaluation Law


It would permit only doctors to prescribe marijuana, in forms including oil-based and vapor, to individuals with any of about a half-dozen conditions, including cancer, AIDS, epilepsy and multiple sclerosis.

But it wouldn't legalize smokable forms of the drug, making the effort much narrower in scope than many other medical-marijuana laws around the country. And it would allow the governor, upon recommendation by the state police superintendent or health commissioner, to suspend the program at any time.

It would also automatically expire after seven years, at which time the Legislature and governor could reauthorize the program.

"Medical marijuana has the capacity to do a lot of good for a lot of people who are in pain and suffering," Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, said at a Capitol news conference. "At the same time, it's a difficult issue, because there are also risks that have to be averted—public-health, public-safety risks. And we believe this bill strikes the right balance."

The plan would make New York the 23rd state to legalize at least some forms of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and the second—in addition to Minnesota—to do so while also banning smokable forms.

Mr. Cuomo had said he wanted to curb marijuana's potential to become a "gateway" drug, a worry shared by some Republicans—including the GOP leader in the Senate, Dean Skelos—whose votes were critical to the legislation's success.

While Mr. Cuomo exerted significant influence over the final product, the administration was late to become involved in shaping the bill. Until recently, the governor had been advocating for a pilot program introducing medical marijuana in hospitals.

The bill now pending in the Legislature is largely the creation of its sponsors, Sen. Diane Savino, a Staten Island Democrat, and Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, a Manhattan Democrat who has advocated for medical marijuana legalization for nearly 20 years. It faced resistance in the more conservative Senate, until the politics surrounding the issue and the public support for the practice began to shift earlier this year.

In January, Mr. Cuomo introduced his own, more limited effort to make pot available to the very ill, using an obscure 1980s law to set up a research program on marijuana, run by 20 hospitals. But the sponsors of the full-scale legalization bill and patient advocates complained that the governor's plan wouldn't go far enough to help sick people.

Shortly thereafter, some Republican senators who had previously opposed medical marijuana said they would back Ms. Savino and Mr. Gottfried's bill.

As support grew in the final days of the legislative session, Mr. Cuomo's aides jumped in to allay the governor's concerns—primarily over allowing the drug to be smoked. Ms. Savino's bill had allowed health-care professionals to prescribe it in smokable form to patients over age 21. The governor insisted on an expiration date and the power to end the program himself.

The program includes a host of other limitations. Physicians must get training before prescribing pot, and patients must be certified by licensed practitioners and get an identification card from the state Department of Health, which would oversee the program. Dispensaries could get registrations 18 months after the bill's passage.

On Thursday, medical-marijuana advocates said they were disappointed by the restrictions placed on the program.

"This is not the bill we wanted," said Gabriel Sayegh, director of the New York state office of the Drug Policy Alliance.

"The method [of intake] should be decided between a patient and a doctor, what method is correct for a patient," said Keith Seymour, a member of advocacy organization Compassionate Care NY, who was at the Capitol Thursday. He said he still wanted the bill to pass.

Ms. Savino had described several of Mr. Cuomo's requests, particularly the exclusion of smoking, as "nonstarters," but said on Thursday that she wouldn't prevent a compromise that could still help patients.

"You have to evaluate the whole program," she said. "If that becomes the only thing that stands in the way, you can't say no to that. It just doesn't make any sense."

—Mike Vilensky contributed to this article.

 

[ElusiveQuark]

I don't think that is going to be a practical solution. Sounds like Gov Cuomo is not a head.

 

[Jhhnn]

so Obama's DEA has already conducted their door bustin SWAT raids on 4 pot shops in Denver this year?
Jhhnn was saying a few pages back Obama and the DEA were "staying out of the way" in CO
and what great thing obama was doing?

I'm sure Obama had no idea what was going on and read about in the paper like every one else,
like the time when he read in the news paper the IRS took it upon themselves to punish his "enemies",
what luck they didn't target any liberal orgs supporting him.
AND even tho the head of the IRS had visited him in Person something like 118 times in the white house,
more than any other single person in a 6month period.

AND fast and furious, running guns to the cartels to track where they went,... but never tracked a single one
except the 1 the gun used to kill an American Border Patrol Guard.

AND Benghazi.. wait... he was notified but no one knows where he was afterwards, prolly in bed after an exhausting 18 holes

AND the NSA recording everything every american does electronically..

AND solyndra going bankrupt mere months after receiving OVER a cool 1/2 a billion the top heads that gave piles of cash to Barry's re-election campaign, too bad no one like the DOJ could never figured out what happen to it?

AND the Vets dying because of secret waiting lists and 67,000 others still waiting
but he did know,
it was know about issues of wait time before he took office in 08

THANK GOD he gets the news paper or the most powerful man on earth running the most powerful nation(for now) would be 1 clueless mofo


BTW....
I'd fire those NSA guys,
they're slackin big time getting all that hard intel to barry

Straight for usual litany of negativity & Obama-hate, huh?

Staying on-topic, the raids on the denver pot shops were part of a much larger effort wrt some very bad actors in the Florida & Colombian underworld.

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2013/11/marijuana_dea_pot_raids_colorado_tony_montana.php

http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana...emerge-colorado-marijuana-operators-raided-by

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...ss-raids-says-weapons-charge-unconstitutional

That pic in the third link was found in Guardarama's email in Florida, then determined to have been taken in Uribe's $1.3M newly purchased home through pics on Zillow.

More than a few people in the ranks of Colorado growers see the whole thing as the Feds taking out the trash for 'em, helping CO to clean up the act before retail opened. They've since been pushed out of the CO MMJ business entirely. The State demands squeaky clean operators, keeps the Feds happy, keeps legalization on the up and up.

There have been no more raids, & probably won't be wrt operators actually playing by the rules.

It's a whole different headset, one CO has to wear to make legalization successful.

 

[bentom187]

...........

 

[the gnome]

Straight for usual litany of negativity & Obama-hate, huh?

Staying on-topic, the raids on the denver pot shops were part of a much larger effort wrt some very bad actors in the Florida & Colombian underworld.


More than a few people in the ranks of Colorado growers see the whole thing as the Feds taking out the trash for 'em, helping CO to clean up the act before retail opened. They've since been pushed out of the CO MMJ business entirely. The State demands squeaky clean operators, keeps the Feds happy, keeps legalization on the up and up.

There have been no more raids, & probably won't be wrt operators actually playing by the rules.

It's a whole different headset, one CO has to wear to make legalization successful.

Jhhnn your the one that just said on the last page Obama was staying out of the way,
and after the fact the DEA was doing what it does best, kicking in doors.
as if you glossed over that fact for Obama's benefit
or you must not get the newspaper O gets,
what i said is on topic, as else where obama sent in his dogs to do his bidding in denver
and it doesn't seem to bother you at all if it casts any bad on Obozo
call it hate all day long, or racist but that cards been played ad nauseum, but its a fact.
as far as no more raids??
in what and entire 45 days? and now it's all squeaky clean?
got news for ya, things never stay squeaky clean so to think 4 raids and it over...... it ain't.


I would think CO could handle taking out it's own trash without the need for for the full might of a federal govt agency
showing you guys how to deal with 4 pot shops?

maybe the DEA doubts Denver PD is not up to enforcing its own state law
with 4 small shops?
fact is the govt is flexing it's muscle and letting you in CO know it who's really in charge.
you seem to have a nice set up in Co, but in the end it's just a piece of paper and fed law trumps anything you have, and they made that pretty clear.
until fed law is changed they still own you

 

[RoadRash]

One way to look at proposed legislation is to ask, would this be good or bad for Will Foster ?


He was a grower who was allegedly found with about 93 plants (or maybe that was the year ?) in Oklahoma or something. They threw the book at him, life or 20 years or something.


One thing about current persecution is that persecuting Cannabis users is a money-maker for LEO - it gives them jobs.


Maybe good old-fashioned 'greed' & the free market will triumph. I expect Colorado's economy is doing pretty well, compared to other states that are dragging their heels on re-legalizing marijuana.