What's new
  • Please note members who been with us for more than 10 years have been upgraded to "Veteran" status and will receive exclusive benefits. If you wish to find out more about this or support IcMag and get same benefits, check this thread here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

It looks like J Sessions is getting his way....

Status
Not open for further replies.

vta

Active member
Veteran
Yeah...too bad he can't spend money or resources to go after those following state laws.
 

Kankakee

Member
Indeed. Good points Betterhaff -

Illinois has very restrictive laws regarding licensing $500k original bid fee, further cost and restriction, only 21 manufactures allowed, all processing for oils ect must be done onsite at manufacture. Transportation times and routes tied into state police with delivery to dispensary. These guys will be at the end of the list regarding fed crackdown because its very restrictive and controlled. Unlike Cali - Colo, Oregon. And they have lots of political pull across the usa ....

This " lobby " does not like states exporting extra supply. This construct must be taken into account as they also want heavy crackdown upon the black market exports. Just like those selling CBD oil's etc under hemp license and selling across state lines are risking huge penalty. The massive " big pharma " cabal will not allow cbd sales etc , ......, u can bank on this also unfolding among other crackdowns ....
 
Last edited:

Kankakee

Member
so do the dispensary carry personal information regarding sales / wholesale / suppliers ? is this required in cali or colorado ??

in many cases the fed's " watch " someone for months and months gathering information.

its my guess a small circle of wholesalers control more as prices drop also. they are sitting ducks in 2018 w/ technology, nobody is hidden. and what ? 75% must be exiting these states ..... vs: production. and these local politicians understand these tax dollars now tied into black market exports.
 

igrowone

Well-known member
Veteran
the latest courtesy NBCNews

Jan 4 2018, 4:46 pm ET
Justice officials reluctant to predict new marijuana prosecutions

by Pete Williams

Justice Department officials were reluctant on Thursday to predict that a change in federal policy toward marijuana would result in aggressive new enforcement measures against an industry that has grown rapidly in the past few years.

They conceded that the shift injected uncertainty into the system sanctioned by individual states for growing and selling cannabis plants. But that very doubt appears to be what they believe is one of the benefits of the policy change.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions told the nation's U.S. attorneys on Thursday that they are free to bring marijuana cases if they believe it's a local priority in their districts. In a three-paragraph memo, he rescinded the Justice Department's previous hands-off approach taken during the Obama administration.

A senior Justice Department official said the Obama-era policy "resulted in a belief that certain marijuana operators would not be prosecuted" and was perceived "to have created a safe harbor for the industry to operate."

Articulated in a 2013 memorandum, the Obama policy instructed the nation's federal prosecutors to focus only on marijuana cases that involved gangs or organized crime, sales beyond a state border, growing marijuana plants on federal land, or distribution to children.

But Sessions stopped short Thursday of instructing prosecutors to bring more cases, and senior department officials denied that the move was intended to send a message to the industry that it's going to be the target of a new enforcement push.

A Justice Department statement described the new policy as "a return to the rule of law" and said it was "a return of trust and local control to federal prosecutors who know where and how to deploy Justice Department resources most effectively."

Chuck Rosenberg, who stepped down as DEA administrator in September, said the policy revision would not substantially change the course of federal prosecutions. "Many U.S. attorneys were bringing marijuana cases when they thought it was appropriate, regardless of the Obama policy," he said.

Bob Troyer, the U.S. attorney in Colorado, said his office "has already been guided by these principles in marijuana prosecutions, focusing in particular on identifying and prosecuting those who create the greatest safety threats to our communities around the state" and would "continue to take this approach."

"Jeff Sessions isn't providing any new resources," Rosenberg said. Other legal experts said fighting the nation's opioid epidemic is a much higher priority than going after an industry blessed by the states.

But advocates of greater legalization predicted that the policy change would rock marijuana growers and dealers. "It will only create chaos and confusion for an industry that is currently responsible for creating over 150,000 American jobs and generating countless millions in state tax revenue," said Erik Altieri, executive director of the pro-marijuana group NORML.

Senator Cory Gardner, a Colorado Republican, said in a tweet that the move "directly contradicts what Attorney General Sessions told me prior to his confirmation."

Gardner threatened to hold up confirmation of Justice Department nominees as retaliation.

"I am prepared to take all steps necessary, including holding DOJ nominees, until the Attorney General lives up to the commitment he made to me prior to his confirmation," Gardner wrote.

A senior Justice Department official said Thursday's memo was not sent at the request of the White House and originated entirely inside the department.

Sessions has long been an outspoken opponent of marijuana, even as a U.S. senator. "I don't think America will be a better place when more people, especially young people, smoke pot," he said shortly after becoming attorney general.
 

ronbo51

Member
Veteran
I'll bet this is a step towards federal legalization and big boys rolling in.

I think this is at least worth pursuing as a thought. Trump said he was cool with the states and mj when he campaigned. Let's pretend he was. Sessions has said its up to Congress to change the law. I've seen the video. So it's up to Congress. Having this disconnect with the law is stupid. Congress writes laws. We pay them a lot. Write a fucking law and end this stupid era in our history. Reschedule, deschedule, do something that most of the country agrees with in pretty overwhelming numbers.

Trump gets Congress to write a fucking law and pass it. Marijuana gets handed off to Wall Street, and we're off to the races.

Otherwise I think the comment about asset forfeiture is relevant.
 

Kankakee

Member
History repeats - And never forget instagram has become a circus' / bazar' that is not only a storefront w/ digital trail, location stamps etc ( ie: proof ) insanity IMO. Massive grows, seed sales, clones, flowers and oil's ..... all un-taxed. lol'




" WASHINGTON, October 27, 1989— Federal drug agents arrested 119 people today and raided retail stores in 46 states that sell specialized horticultural equipment that investigators say is used for growing marijuana indoors. Officials of the Drug Enforcement Administration said that agents entered 22 businesses selling horticultural lighting and watering equipment and that 8 or 9 were closed. Agents also seized business documents like shipping records and customer lists that could lead to indoor marijuana growers, the officials said. Charges Are Unclear But most of those arrested today appeared to be people accused of growing marijuana indoors. It was not made clear where they were arrested, or on what charges. Sixty-five sites where marijuana was being cultivated, in addition to the stores, were raided and shut down today by Federal drug agents in conjunction with state and local law-enforcement officials.Terrence W. Burke, Acting Deputy Administrator of the drug agency, said the investigation was a broad attack ultimately aimed at reducing occasional marijuana use. Users Held to Account ''Users are a major factor in the drug trafficking problem and they are going to be held accountable and subject to suitable penalties, both civil and criminal,'' he said. More broadly, an Administration official said, the action was a signal to drug-producing countries, whose leaders have complained that American officials have asked them to curtail production while failing to take similar steps at home. Representatives of groups that back liberalizing marijuana laws scoffed at the crackdown. Doug McVay, the projects coordinator of National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said it was a ''publicity stunt.'' Fear for the Innocent. He said the inquiry was a waste of Federal resources because the effort to track down the purchasers of the growing equipment would lead drug agents to innocent people. ''A lot of gardening clubs around the country will be shocked,'' he said. "
 

St. Phatty

Active member
I can't quite figure this fuckhead (Sessions) out...

Back in '69, when he was in college, someone must have given him a joint laced with PCP....

Maybe the country will get lucky, and this dipshit will have a massive heart attack and die...

Big Pharma and Big American Pseudo-Medicine.

noticing that in the first 2 pages, Bud Green's post got the most thumbs-up's = a Very Helpful post !!! :woohoo:

maybe dipshit Sessions will consume too much American medicine and need to spend more time with his family.

maybe dipshit Sessions will develop a painful medical condition for which Ganja is the only effective remedy :tiphat:
 

vta

Active member
Veteran
Found this...

Lawsplainer: Attorney General Sessions' Threatened Action on Marijuana

January 4, 2018 by Ken White 11 Comments

WAKE UP WAKE UP THEY'RE COMING FOR ME I NEED BAIL MONEY

wat

THE FBI THEY'LL BE HERE ANY MINUTE BECAUSE I ATE THAT NO-GLUTEN BROWNIE AT AN OSCARS PARTY IN LOS FELIZ


What the hell is going on?

The feds! They're coming after us for our marijuana!

Wait. Is this about Attorney General Jeff Sessions saying he will rescind Obama-era Department of Justice memos about federal prosecution of marijuana transactions that are legal under the laws of various states?

Yes! Yes. That. The rescindition, with the thing, and Sessions. And marijuana.

Okay. And do you know the context?

YES! Yes. Yes. A bit. A bit. No. Not really.

Okay. Let's talk about what it means.

So I'm not getting arrested by the ATF right away?

You don't . . . the ATF doesn't . . . you know, just hold on a second and let's go through this.

Okay.

So. Let's start with basics.

Many states make it illegal to possess or distribute marijuana. Until recently it was all states. It's also a crime under federal law. Even simple possession of marijuana — that is, possession for personal use, not to distribute to someone else — is a federal crime.

Wait, you were a federal prosecutor back in the 18th Century or something. Did you actually prosecute people for marijuana?

Yes. I'm not proud of it. I prosecuted people for involvement in marijuana cultivation and distribution operations — operations involving 500 plants or more. It was wrong, and I'm actually ashamed of it.

For many years there wasn't a conflict between state and federal law. Both prohibited marijuana. But then states, one by one, began making marijuana legal — first for medical purposes, then for personal use.

What did that do to the federal law?


It did nothing. Marijuana remained illegal under federal law. Under the Supremacy Clause to the United States Constitution, the states can't immunize people from federal prosecution — they can make things legal under state law, but can't make things legal under federal law. Cultivating marijuana and distributing it were a federal felony. Only policy, prosecutorial discretion, and resource allocation would save you from being prosecuted federally for marijuana distribution that was legal under state law.

That sounds like a recipe for uncertainty and disaster.


It was. Under the Obama Administration, the United States Department of Justice issued a series of memos with guidelines for federal prosecutors to help them decide whether and when to launch federal prosecutions of marijuana offenses that might be legal under state law. The first, in October 2009, was called the Ogden Memorandum, named after a Deputy Attorney General. It said that federal prosecutors "should not focus federal resources in your states on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with state laws" permitting medical marijuana use. Instead, it said that federal prosecutors should focus on only those marijuana cases that reflected high federal interest: cases involving possession of guns, violence, sales to minors, ties to criminal enterprises, financial shenanigans, and distribution of other illegal substances.

But in 2009 the state laws were only about medical marijuana, right? What about when personal use marijuana became legal in some states?


There were more memos about that, called the Cole Memoranda. Deputy Attorney General Cole issues a series of memoranda further articulating Department of Justice policy in the face of emerging state laws legalizing personal use of marijuana. The upshot was this: the Cole Memoranda said that as long as states effectively regulated marijuana usage to assure compliance with state personal use laws, the Department of Justice would focus its resources on federal interests: sale to children, connections to organized crime, transportation from one state to another, use or cultivation on federal property, and use of financial systems to launder or conceal proceeds. Other parts of the federal government followed suit: for instance, the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN) issued guidelines for financial institutions for dealing with customers engaged in state-legal marijuana businesses.

So if you want to grow or sell marijuana in states where it's legal, you're safe from federal prosecution as long as you obey state law, stay away from kids and organized crime, and the federal prosecutors obey the Department of Justice guidelines?

In theory. Plus, Congress got into the act.

In 2014, in the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment to an appropriations bill, Congress prohibited the Department of Justice from using federal money to "prevent" states from implementing laws making medical use of marijuana legal. Courts have found that this amendment may prohibit federal prosecutions for medical marijuana activities that are legal under state law.

Since then, Rohrbacher-Farr has been included in each appropriations bill and continuing resolution.

So what does all this mean for people who want to use or sell marijuana in states law allow it?

First of all, practically speaking, federal prosecutors can't do much about marijuana use. Federal prosecutors only have the resources to prosecute a tiny number of cases compared to state prosecutors, and the vast majority of their time is taken up with other priorities: serious white-collar crime, immigration crime, guns, violent crime, and so forth. Typically federal prosecutors have guidelines that discourage taking any but the biggest marijuana cases — cases involving hundreds or thousands of kilos or many hundreds of plants.

Second, between the Ogden and Cole Memoranda and Rohrabacher-Farr, federal prosecutors haven't made serious attempts to thwart state laws making marijuana legal. They've made a few gestures consistent with the Cole memorandum — for instance, by sending letters to landlords of marijuana dispensaries that were operating in violation of state law, threatening that they could face prosecution or forfeiture for allowing their property to be used for marijuana activities in violation of state law.

But that could change.

How does Attorney General Sessions figure into this?


Sessions is a staunch foe of marijuana legalization. He asked Congress not to include Rohrabacher-Farr in appropriations bills back in 2017. He's previously sent mixed messages about the Ogden and Cole Memoranda. And now, reportedly, he wants to rescind the Ogden and Cole Memoranda and change Department of Justice policy on federal prosecution of state-legal marijuana activities.

Okay. But what does that really mean?

As long as Rohrabacher-Farr remains in every federal appropriations bill, Department of Justice policy is mostly symbolic — the Department of Justice will still be prohibited from spending money on prosecuting people for medical marijuana activities that are legal under state laws. (That doesn't limit prosecutions of non-medical personal use activities, though — but it will be difficult to tease them apart.) And, practically speaking, it's utterly impossible for the Department of Justice to prosecute more than a very tiny fraction of marijuana cases. They don't have the resources. A big U.S. Attorney's Office might file around 1200 indictments a year — that's all indictments for all types of cases and crimes. Of that, maybe a dozen, tops, might be about marijuana. They can't change that without sacrificing other priorities. They could abandon every other type of case and still not do a tenth of the marijuana cases that local authorities do. Moreover, marijuana legalization is quite popular, and federal interference in it is quite unpopular, so there's not a whole lot of upside.

That said, if Sessions revokes the Ogden and Cole memoranda — and especially if he also succeeds in convincing Congress not to include Rohrabacher-Farr in the next appropriations bill or continuing resolution — he'll inject a substantial amount of uncertainty into the situation. Even if getting prosecuted federally for marijuana is so rare that it's like getting struck by lightning, getting struck by lightning remains terrifying and often fatal. This will have relatively little impact on personal users, but it could have a significant impact on the development of the legitimate business side of marijuana cultivation in states where it is legal. Landlords who might rent to dispensaries, businesses that might service them, financial institutions that might handle their money, professionals that might advise them — those legitimate, high-profile, highly-risk-averse institutions will all be deterred from involvement in the industry. The process of turning marijuana from a street drug to a legally regulated commodity will, at least, be slowed down.

But I won't go to jail?

No. Unless the feds decide to file one of their extremely few marijuana prosecutions to make an example of you — if you run a prominent cultivation operation, or run a bank handling a cultivation operation's money, or something like that — your primary criminal risk will still be about compliance with state law. Your main concern will be that businesses and institutions will be slow to support an activity that the citizens of your state have chosen to make legal.

So what are you watching for?

Three things. First, I'm looking for the language of Sessions' revocation of the Ogden and Cole memoranda. Will he simply revoke them, or will he announce a new policy? That new policy will suggest the future risks of federal prosecution. It would not surprise me if this is mostly cosmetic: Sessions may issue a memorandum that has anti-marijuana propaganda but doesn't really change federal priorities or resource allocation.

Second, I'll wait to see if other policies change — for instance, whether FINCEN revokes its financial institution guidelines in reaction to any memo from Sessions.

Third, I will watch to see whether Rohrabacher-Farr is included in each appropriations bill and continuing resolution. If it is, that's still a substantial impediment to a federal anti-marijuana surge. If it's left out, then that signals significantly increased danger. If, on the other hand, it's kept in — or even expanded to include non-medical personal use — that's a good sign in the other direction.

First Edit:
Several people think I am overstating how "safe" marijuana cultivation is under the Ogden/Cole/Rohrabacher-Farr regime. Not so. As my friend Nicholas Weaver points out, plenty of state agencies still use criminal prosecution and forfeiture to go after cultivation operations even in states where it's legal, relying on allegations that it's somehow being done in a way that violates state or local law. This 'splainer is primarily about federal involvement.

Second Edit:
Sessions has issued his memo, available here. It's vague. It simply rescinds the Odgen and Cole Memoranda and says that the generally established principles of federal prosecution are sufficient to guide federal prosecutors in resource allocation. "These principles require federal prosecutors deciding which cases to prosecute to weigh all relevant considerations, including law enforcement priorities set by the Attorney General, the seriousness of the crime, the deterrent effect of criminal prosecution, and the cumulative impact of the particular crimes on the community." The memo doesn't announce a new policy of pursuing marijuana activities legal under state law.

Absent Sessions announcing new efforts to prosecute state-legal operations, the impact of the memo is mostly to increase ambiguity and risk, and to deter more mainstream businesses from getting involved in the industry, as I discussed above.

Third Edit:
My language misleadingly suggested that Rohrabacher-Farr goes beyond medical marijuana, so I clarified that it only forbids Department of Justice spending on prosecutions of medical marijuana legal under state law. Practically speaking, it will be an impediment to personal-use prosecutions as well to the extent defendants claim they are in business to produce for medical use.

For embedded links goto https://www.popehat.com/2018/01/04/...eral-sessions-threatened-action-on-marijuana/
 

vta

Active member
Veteran
From Reason....

Sessions Still Is Not Leading a Cannabis Crackdown

The attorney general's memo gives U.S. attorneys the discretion they always had to target state-legal marijuana suppliers.

Today Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded a 2013 Justice Department memo that signaled a policy of prosecutorial restraint for state-licensed marijuana businesses. Rather than suggesting to U.S. attorneys how they should decide which marijuana cases to pursue, Sessions is letting them decide for themselves. Although that move reflects Sessions' well-known opposition to marijuana legalization, it is not clear how big an impact it will have on the cannabis industry, because federal prosecutors have always had broad discretion but limited resources in this area.

"Given the Department's well-established general principles," Sessions writes in a one-page memo he sent U.S. attorneys today, "previous nationwide guidance specific to marijuana enforcement is unnecessary and is rescinded, effective immediately." He is referring mainly to a 2013 memo in which James Cole, then the deputy attorney general, said U.S. attorneys, in deciding whether to target marijuana suppliers who comply with state law, should be guided by "certain enforcement priorities that are particularly important to the federal government." Cole listed eight priorities, including the prevention of interstate smuggling, sales to minors, and drugged driving or other "adverse public health consequences." He added that "nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution, even in the absence of any one of the factors listed above, in particular circumstances where investigation and prosecution otherwise serves an important federal interest."

On paper, the Cole memo left U.S. attorneys free to prosecute state-legal marijuana growers and distributors, as long as they could invoke an important federal interest. That would not have been hard, given the breadth of the goals specified by Cole and his warning that the list was not exhaustive. But in practice, U.S. attorneys since 2013 generally have refrained from targeting marijuana businesses unless they violate state as well as federal law.

Sessions could have tried to change that without rescinding the Cole memo. As a senator and as attorney general, he has said the memo provides sound prosecutorial guidance while suggesting that it has not been applied as aggressively as it should have been. He could easily have defended a broad cannabis crackdown based on the priorities Cole listed. Every marijuana merchant, for example, arguably contributes to drugged driving and underage consumption (through diversion from adult customers if not through lax ID checks), so shutting down the biggest operations through prosecution or forfeiture fits comfortably within the contours of the Cole memo. But Sessions has not attempted anything like that.

On paper, Sessions' memo does not change DOJ policy. By his own account, it merely eliminates gratuitous guidance that was already implicit in the DOJ's "well-established general principles." The question is whether U.S. attorneys will now be more inclined to go after the many highly conspicuous, state-licensed marijuana suppliers who are openly committing federal felonies every day. Although the Justice Department does not have the resources to prosecute all of them, a few raids, or even a few threatening letters, would seriously disrupt the industry.

It's not clear that's what Sessions wants to see, notwithstanding his strong anti-pot prejudices. Most Americans think marijuana should be legal, and an even larger majority, including most Republicans, says the decision should be left to the states. Sessions' boss, who is already irked at him because of the Russia investigation, has repeatedly said states should be free to legalize marijuana for medical or recreational use (although he is less enthusiastic about the latter option). Marijuana is legal for recreational use in eight states, home to one in five Americans. Medical marijuana is legal in 29 states. A cannabis crackdown would anger officials from those states, creating political headaches that neither Sessions nor Donald Trump needs. And since home cultivation is legal in seven of the eight states that allow recreational use, a crackdown would shift the supply from relatively few visible and regulated sources to myriad uncontrollable growers.

The response to Sessions' announcement illustrates the political peril of trying to shut down the cannabis industry. "This reported action directly contradicts what Attorney General Sessions told me prior to his confirmation," Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) said on Twitter. "With no prior notice to Congress, the Justice Department has trampled on the will of the voters in CO and other states." Gardner noted President Trump's promise of marijuana federalism, adding, "I am prepared to take all steps necessary, including holding DOJ nominees, until the Attorney General lives up to the commitment he made to me prior to his confirmation."

A "senior DOJ official" who spoke to reporters on the condition that he not be named was cagey about the goal of Sessions' memo. "I can't sit here and say whether it will or will not lead to more marijuana prosecutions," he said. "We believe U.S. attorneys' offices should be opened up to bring all of these cases that are necessary to be brought." Which is also what Cole said.

I would be more inclined to believe that Sessions is bent on wrecking the legal cannabis industry if he challenged state marijuana regulations in federal court. There is a credible argument to be made that licensing marijuana cultivation and distribution, as opposed to merely repealing state penalties for those activities, conflicts with the Controlled Substances Act and is therefore preempted under the Supremacy Clause (leaving aside the shaky constitutional basis for applying the CSA to activities that do not cross state lines). But as Cole noted in 2013, a successful legal challenge to state licensing systems, like a successful effort to shut down cannabusinesses through prosecution and forfeiture, would make marijuana production and sales harder to monitor and control.

Sessions' memo is obviously not good news for the cannabis industry or supporters of legalization. In addition to the 2013 memo, Sessions rescinded a 2009 memo from David Ogden, Cole's predecessor, addressing medical marijuana; a 2011 Cole memo on the same subject; a 2014 Cole memo dealing with banking services for the cannabis industry; and a 2014 memo from another DOJ official extending Cole's guidance to tribal lands. None of those documents provided any guarantees or even clear guidance for people trying to avoid trouble with the federal government. But withdrawing them compounds the uncertainty surrounding businesses that are deemed legitimate by most states yet qualify as criminal enterprises under federal law. Perhaps Sessions' saber rattling will encourage Congress to resolve that conflict in a way that does not depend on fuzzy and fleeting memoranda.

Addendum: Bob Troyer, whom Sessions picked as the interim U.S. attorney in Colorado last November, issued a press release saying today's memo will not affect his prosecutorial choices. "The United States Attorney's Office in Colorado has already been guided by these principles in marijuana prosecutions—focusing in particular on identifying and prosecuting those who create the greatest safety threats to our communities around the state," Troyer said. "We will, consistent with the Attorney General's latest guidance, continue to take this approach in all of our work with our law enforcement partners throughout Colorado."
 

Ready4

Active member
Veteran
"A Justice Department statement described the new policy as a "return to the rule of law" "
That statement sums up what the new "memo" was = total 100% bullshit, nothing but a "dog & pony show" By stating they were now "returning to the rule of law", they are pretending they are actually working for once & that the previous "memo" by President Obama had abandoned "the rule of law" , "endangering all of America !" and " letting in a criminal free for all !"
J Sessions is an evil keebler elf, possibly the very worst choice of all possible candidates for the AG position.

Happy New Year !
 

Easy7

Active member
Veteran
You all have wild estimations.

The more documented and restricted a states legal cannabis is, only makes it all the more easy for feds. Chaos has always been the criminals friend. Expect the unexpected.
 

St. Phatty

Active member
History repeats -

" WASHINGTON, October 27, 1989— Federal drug agents arrested 119 people today and raided retail stores in 46 states that sell specialized horticultural equipment that investigators say is used for growing marijuana indoors. Officials of the Drug Enforcement Administration said that agents entered 22 businesses selling horticultural lighting and watering equipment and that 8 or 9 were closed. Agents also seized business documents like shipping records and customer lists that could lead to indoor marijuana growers, the officials said

Operation Green Merchant.

I always thought it was October 26.

But obviously, it was spread over days and weeks.

http://www.thesmokersclub.com/blog/revisiting-operation-green-merchant-deas-sting-seeds/

"The now infamous operation started with one DEA agent named Jim Stewart. He concocted the initial plans for Operation Green Merchant while thumbing through an issue of HIGH TIMES magazine. Stewart noticed the overwhelming amount of ads for seed banks and grow supply stores in the magazine. To hack into the seed system, Stewart then devised a plan to send undercover agents to the companies that advertised in “counter-culture” magazines to inquire about growing cannabis.

This investigation led to multiple businesses being raided and even shut down. The crazy thing about all of this was that the DEA seized business records from all of these businesses. DEA agents started harassing customers of these businesses on the sole fact that they had purchased goods from a hydroponic supply store that advertised in Sensimilla Tips or HIGH TIMES. Operation Green Merchant eventually led to the demise of Sensimilla Tips and the world’s first seed bank ran by the legendary Neville.

Operation Green Merchant sent the cannabis scene into the complete underground. It wasn’t until 1996 when Proposition 215 passed in California that the cannabis growing scene would peek its head out in the open."

Actually, in Silicon Valley, people would smoke pot openly in public during the early 90's. I remember going into a Long's drug store in Redwood City. There was some guy outside, hanging in the shade, smoking a spliff. Next to a parking lot where city cops were parked.

I remember reading about a manicuring party where one of the trimmers was a woman police officer. That's Officer Trimmigrant, to you :woohoo:
 
M

moose eater

J Sessions is an evil keebler elf, possibly the very worst choice of all possible candidates for the AG position


I've grown kind of fond of Kate McKinnon's SNL parody of Sessions as having been fathered by a male possum. (*Apologies to possums, and possum-lovers everywhere).

Has made perfect sense to me, though.. A rodent, almost a weasel. Hanging in the trees and hiding in the cupboards. A twisted voyeur and neo-Puritan by any estimation.

Wonder what he'd taste like, trussed up and roasted with an apple in his mouth, as Idi Amin used to do with his opponents?

Knowing that "marijuana smokers are not nice people," I could see it happening. The munchies are mighty powerful sometimes.... :biggrin:
 
ok but someone must of slapped you pretty hard to mess up your vision because no where does it say in his memo that feds are cracking down.
anyway maybe you can tell us how and who he said to crack down on?
did not think so....
 
Someone should slap you, lol. They are not going to make sure state law is followed, they are going to enforce federal law. As in marijuana is a scedule 1 drug with no medical qualities.

They have too many big fish to fry first. Dont think they wont come after med people.

ok but someone must of slapped you pretty hard to mess up your vision because no where does it say in his memo that feds are cracking down.
anyway maybe you can tell us how and who he said to crack down on?
did not think so....
 

Wendull C.

Active member
Veteran
Yeah i was dropped on myhead as a kid a couple times. Why don't you go read what he said about making all obama era policies on marijuans null and void then get back to me. I wont insult you by saying didnt think so. So go read his press release and tell me im wrong.

Memos dont mean shit and are as disposable as executive orders. Only legislation is non binding. Sessions said he would enforce the laws as written.

And btw that slap you was intended as a joke.
 

Wendull C.

Active member
Veteran
Just to clarify, sessions said he would crack down on anyone violating federal law. Which means to me, myself and most i know.
 

herbgreen

Active member
Veteran
Turn back the clock to 1980?wtf

yeah, right!

Sessions really is the ganja grinch!!

But then he gets really high and sees the error of his ways....

Returns all the stuff wrapped up in different colorful rolling papers for ALL to enjoy!

hooray! F#@!K
 

vta

Active member
Veteran
Don't worry about ole Jeff...


He ain't doing shit

picture.php
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top