Calif. pot dispensaries told by feds to shut down

[HempKat]

You know I really love this answer because it's always the same one LOL... Yeah thats not my job or talk to that government lol..
Holy shit you guys in the USA are as brainwashed as here in Canada..
Whenever anything goes wrong here in Canada they always say go to the other Gov and the other Gov say Nah to go the other one and NOTHING ever gets done .. Welcome to our world lol...We have federal and provincal gov and it's all bullshit too... I guess this is how they keep the ppl down. Tell them they are free and tell the world they are free but the truth is it's all BULLSHIT!!!!
I for one am so sick of this shit and so tired of fighting about cannabis .. They have wasted enough of our money on this and it's all about fighting it and not helping ppl and enough is enough.. headband707

Nope it has nothing to do with one branch passing blame on to the next but rather a failure of many of the people the government serves, to understand how things actually work. Now you might say, "Well if people don't understand then politician's shouldn't make promises they know the voters don't realize they can't keep." Which is true in a perfect world. Alas this is not a perfect world and Politician's are not saints commited to serving the public for the sake of doing good. Politician's are lying, scheming, self serving bastards only interested in furthering their personal agenda period. They'll gladly use the people's ignorance to their advantage.

 

[HempKat]

wanna see the power of XOs?

look at XO 11490,11497,11727,13544,13556,13584,13590,13254,
i could go on...

the hilarious part is suggesting that nixon asked congress for permission to create the DEA and abolish the BOP.
like bushie had to ask congress before adding the E to the atf? (btw that was an XO)

have you guys forgotten presidential signing statements already?
but lets go with the CEO of a company angle...
if the pres is the CEO that would make the AG and the sec. of HHS his directors no?
so the CEO is in charge of the actions of his directors right?
could the CEO not order his directors to implement his strategies?

i know if the CEO of the corp my wife works for orders one of his national directors to jump they don't ask "how high" they jump as high as they fucking can as quick as they can.

a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to toke up?
is that a joke?

i love how O apologists act like the pres is some powerless figurehead but, somehow in the previous incarnations the exec. was an almost all powerful dictator. lmao

Nobody suggested Nixion asked permission for anything, I suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension before you try to continue in the discussion. Or perhaps you're deliberately pretending that people said different because you can't admit your previous statement was wrong?

As for the CEO thing, that's all fine and dandy except one thing, the President is not a CEO and the government is not a corporation. I know I know, it all sounds logical in your mind but sorry that's just not how it is.

You see, the difference between the corporation your wife works for and the US Government is that the department heads are not part of a checks and balances system. Sure the President appoints the AG but the AG is part of the Judicial branch of the government and as such does not kowtow to the President the way the managers kowtow to the CEO where your wife works.

 

[HempKat]

Yep, the President could be all he wants to be and accomplish all he wanted to do....if he was resolute, strong in his heart, and not concerned about his image or being re-elected.

You forgot to add, and had a legislative branch that the majority didn't pledge to work against him even if that meant going against things they would normally favor or have even proposed themselves in the past.

See it's the legislative branch that makes legislation hence the name. All the President does is either sign or veto the legislation and beyond that he can also make executive orders to spell out how passed legislation will be implemented

 

[skullznroses]

When Obama is the one saying that the new Federal policy will be to arrest MMJ patients, then Im kinda pissed off at Obama. Even if I was willing to suspend believe and think it was out of his power to decide policy issues, I still think that he is flip flopping on us with regards to his stance on MMJ and states rights. He's a dick after all that time sitting in the Oval Office apparently. Lets wait and see what back tracking he does during the election.

We ain't seen nothing yet out of these hacks, wait until the real election BABY!!!

 

[dagnabit]

Nobody suggested Nixion asked permission for anything,

the DEA was created by executive order because it was empowered by congress.

semantics i guess...
empowered by vs. given permission...

I suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension before you try to continue in the discussion. Or perhaps you're deliberately pretending that people said different because you can't admit your previous statement was wrong?

great suggestion
see above

As for the CEO thing, that's all fine and dandy except one thing, the President is not a CEO and the government is not a corporation. I know I know, it all sounds logical in your mind but sorry that's just not how it is.

i didn't make the first comparison
maybe your suggestion was transference?

You see, the difference between the corporation your wife works for and the US Government is that the department heads are not part of a checks and balances system. Sure the President appoints the AG but the AG is part of the Judicial branch of the government and as such does not kowtow to the President the way the managers kowtow to the CEO where your wife works.

civics aint your strong suit huh?
see the DOJ is a part of the executive not judicial

Executive Departments
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Department of Commerce (DOC)
Department of Defense (DOD)
Department of Education (ED)
Department of Energy (DOE)
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Department of Labor (DOL)
Department of State (DOS)
Department of the Interior (DOI)
Department of the Treasury
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Executive.shtml#Executive_Departments

thanks for playing

 

[dagnabit]

See it's the legislative branch that makes legislation hence the name. All the President does is either sign or veto the legislation and beyond that he can also make executive orders to spell out how passed legislation will be implemented

lol
how basic.

the executive executes the laws written by congress. he implements by delegation to his department heads(DOJ among them as well as DEA and HHS). if congress so deems they can call hearings to review the executive's implementation and when challenged on a constitutional basis the judicial adjudicates constitutionality.

this is civics 101...

 

[headband 707]

Nope it has nothing to do with one branch passing blame on to the next but rather a failure of many of the people the government serves, to understand how things actually work. Now you might say, "Well if people don't understand then politician's shouldn't make promises they know the voters don't realize they can't keep." Which is true in a perfect world. Alas this is not a perfect world and Politician's are not saints commited to serving the public for the sake of doing good. Politician's are lying, scheming, self serving bastards only interested in furthering their personal agenda period. They'll gladly use the people's ignorance to their advantage.

Okay bro lets stick to the REAL FACT here then fuck all this buracreacray shall we: This is a witch hunt and there are ppl in jail that should nerver be in jail for cannabis.

This is about cash and who has it and who want it. It does not matter that the drug company has enough cash to lobby congress in their favor make no mistake about this,,,
They are trying to make it look like only
gangsters are into this.. Nevermind all the sick ppl and cancer patients. They are talking about cannabis in the same sentence as coke,heroin,meth ect.
We are all hippies and freaks lol,,,
Anyone catching these "National Geographic Shows"?
Aw propganda at it's best LOL...
They asked that the truth be put on the back burner!!! They have been asking everyone to do this for too long and I think we all see them for what they are liars and theives who take our cash to lock us up!! How many ppl are in jail for cannabis and how much do they make on this and how many ppl have lost all they have because of this? These are the things we need to look up and see what these guys have done...headband707

 

[SeaMaiden]

You see, the difference between the corporation your wife works for and the US Government is that the department heads are not part of a checks and balances system. Sure the President appoints the AG but the AG is part of the Judicial branch of the government and as such does not kowtow to the President the way the managers kowtow to the CEO where your wife works.

That's supposed to be the difference, but in examining current trends in case law and legislation, I believe that those checks and balances have gone out the window. They no longer really exist in any meaningful form.

I believe the US government has become highly corporatized, a form of governance I don't think anyone really could have foreseen, not in its current form.

 

[turbolaser4528]

"Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature.... If the next centennial does not find us a great nation ... it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces."
James Garfield, the twentieth president of the United States, 1877

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."
Patrick Henry, American colonial revolutionary

“I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US congress”

Ronald Reagan

But let us stay on the topic of "California Dispensaries being told to shutdown by the Federal Government."

 

[HempKat]

When Obama is the one saying that the new Federal policy will be to arrest MMJ patients, then Im kinda pissed off at Obama. Even if I was willing to suspend believe and think it was out of his power to decide policy issues, I still think that he is flip flopping on us with regards to his stance on MMJ and states rights. He's a dick after all that time sitting in the Oval Office apparently. Lets wait and see what back tracking he does during the election.

We ain't seen nothing yet out of these hacks, wait until the real election BABY!!!

Well that's the thing, at least to the best of my knowledge Obama isn't saying that. I mean on the whole dispensary issue the only thing I've heard Obama himself say is that if people operate within the state guidelines then it's foolish to waste Federal resources going after those people. Everything I have heard and read on what is going on now said it is 4 US Attornies in California operating on their own intiative and not on Obama's orders.

Now I'm not saying Obama is a saint. To me he's like any other politician and you can tell when any of them are lying because their mouths move when they do. Just look at what the Republican's are doing to each other to get the nomination to be the Republican candidate. Definately in the course of this year you can expect Obama and whoever he runs against to say and promise anything they think will get them elected. That's what politicians do and have been doing for generations. I'm just trying to be fair and honest and in the case of Obama's stance on MMJ to be fair and honest he never really gave a firm position on it and anyone thinking he did read into it what they wanted to hear. Just like alot of the folks who elected him and expected him to transform Washington over night with a wave of his hand.

 

[HempKat]

semantics i guess...
empowered by vs. given permission...

Yeah maybe empowerment and being given permission might be semantics but what you said and what I reponded to was a claim someone said he asked for permission. There's no semantics between empowerment and asking for permission.

great suggestion
see above

I did but like everything else it was wrong and deliberately distorted by you as pointed out in my comments above.

i didn't make the first comparison

So? What you can't think for yourself? You can only imitate what others do? Well I guess that would explain alot?

civics aint your strong suit huh?
see the DOJ is a part of the executive not judicial

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Executive.shtml#Executive_Departments

Well that's all fine and dandy I suppose but this is what it says at the DOJ site

The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws.


The Department of Justice traces its beginning to the First Congress meeting in New York in 1789, at which time the Congress devoted itself to creating the infrastructure for operating the Federal Government. After meeting for several months the legislators passed a bill known as the Judiciary Act that provided for the organization and administration of the judicial branch of the new government, and included in that Act was a provision for appointment of a “…meet person learned in the law, to act as attorney-general for the United States…”

Although it would be nearly another century before Congress would create the Department of Justice, the establishment of the Attorney General position marks the true beginning of the Department. The Judiciary Act was passed by Congress and signed by President George Washington on September 24, 1789, making the Attorney General position the fourth in the order of creation by Congress of those positions that have come to be defined as Cabinet level positions.

http://www.justice.gov/ag/about-oag.html

The DOJ may be considered an executive department but it's still part of the Judicial Branch.

thanks for playing

Ah now I see the problem, you think this is a game. Try World of Warcraft.

 

[HempKat]

lol
how basic.

the executive executes the laws written by congress. he implements by delegation to his department heads(DOJ among them as well as DEA and HHS). if congress so deems they can call hearings to review the executive's implementation and when challenged on a constitutional basis the judicial adjudicates constitutionality.

this is civics 101...

Well you need to go back and stop staring at the civics teacher's ass so much because you apparently missed the part about how the AG advises and makes suggestions to, not take orders from The President.

 

[HempKat]

That's supposed to be the difference, but in examining current trends in case law and legislation, I believe that those checks and balances have gone out the window. They no longer really exist in any meaningful form.

I believe the US government has become highly corporatized, a form of governance I don't think anyone really could have foreseen, not in its current form.

I agree fully with this I mean it's way beyond a few politicians in a few corporations pockets. I can't prove it but I'm pretty sure the whole federal government is a hollow image of what our forefathers envisioned and the whole system is already controlled by the wealthy. That all of the party politics minutiae on both sides is really just the way they keep the masses distracted, busy and confused. Essentially a divide and conquer effort against the public.

 

[ion]

for people that are above-average in wiseness concerning many things......following, letter-to-letter the "legislation" on cannabis...are you serious?

yes, their is quite the shitstorm nationwide and in CA with laws/petitions and one needs to be informed of what the politicians say and where the trends are going and what new laws pass/fail....

but you do this for intel and to see overall trends. you do not participate in this process. to a point. you watch/read news from the heavy med states and from the heavy non-med states.....where's the money going? who's ramped up raids, who's stopped them......where i call my landbase, i just found out about MULTIPLE heli-raids within a 10sq mile radius of me that happened this summe/rfall......EVERY SINGLE RAID resulted in plant seizures........no arrests. they hover around, find plants, burn them, keep looking.

now thats cool, ya say...no busts. and it is great. but WTF? lots of $$ going out in eradication but no $$ in busts/fees/.gov subsidies for interdiction numbers.

so you watch, smell the trends........look at the history of mj prohibition + .govs influence and track record and you could come up with the hypothesis that their methods/stance/approach to cannabis just doesnt make sense......doesnt make sense in lost tax revenue, which i find to be the biggest sign......

you see the meteoric rise of QUALITY mexi coming up, news.stories of serious grow ops, collaboration of cartels/us.gov...OOPS, i mean we were keeping "tabs" on them.......obummer says yer all kool then rogue DA-type oxygen thieves do what they want, obummer stands aside.

it's all ploy. it's agenda. unless you know what their agenda is......and you dont know unless you DO know and if you DO know yer not here at icmag painting the forums with that info.....!......it's .gov doing what they do best, which is control.

couple all this with the .gov drive to thwart 'domestic' terrorists, NDAA, SOPA and they have no more 'bad guys' in tim osman(OBL) and al-qeada anymore........i dont know the agenda, dont profess to........but it kinda looks to me like setting the pins to have the ability to start working(more) on the u.s. citizenry. in whatever way they seem fit.

their agenda is not neccessarily a straight line. .gov usually employs policies/doctrines to push a certain agenda/idea/meme, then back off and let peoples shoot themsleves then they come clean up/propose new legislation.........its control and they have bookoo resources at their disposal to steer anyway they want.

this is not a democracy(apllies to wherever YOU are) and you have no voice. yes, there are victories/triumphs along the way, and some places get to have more leeway(not freedom)than others.

i've had many people tell me to get in the mmj game and start growing legally, wouldnt be too hard for that to happen........but i do not want to be on that list. some states have thousands of peeps on that list so you feel safe.

the cannabis industry is pushing lots of $$.....the feds know it......yet its this cat/mouse shit for years/decades.

this aint over and its only going to get mucho-more interesting.
if yer medical, watch your 6 at all times
if yer not medical, watch yer 6 and get ready for more enforcement.

i DO think its essential for people to get out and play the .gov game; protest, talk to people, write your congresscritter.......but that is NOT where the game is, and yer probably not in the game, but the game CAN be altered by the non-players. if you want to alter the game you have to make your own rules, its been done before.

the only way i could come up with to make a difference was to find some people who need cannabis for medical reasons....and make sure they get what they need. they are not mmj. they dont want to be fingered on the list. its riskier AT THE MOMENT for them to be medicating on the illegal.......i could be doing this the wrong way......but i have full faith and trust in us.gov to do what they do best, so i try to stay off the radar as much as possible.

dont put your faith in a card that comes from control.
be aware and stay safe.

 

[headband 707]

Why is Obama So Chicken, Unwilling to Even Address the Question of Pot and the Failed

Why is Obama So Chicken, Unwilling to Even Address the Question of Pot and the Failed

Pot policy questions were front-and-center in the White House's "Your Interview With the President" YouTube campaign, but Obama refused to acknowledge them.
"We need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws."
Can you guess which 2012 presidential candidate said the above statement? You’d be forgiven for thinking Ron Paul, or even Gary Johnson, since both have publicly advocated for reforming our country’s drug laws. You’d be forgiven for guessing anyone but Barack Obama, based on his actions during the past few years, but it was. It may be hard to believe, but President Obama is the same person who once called for reforming our marijuana laws, and deemed the drug war an "utter failure" during his 2004 campaign for the US Senate. Despite previous calls for reform, on Monday night, when faced with over 70,000 individuals urging him to address the issue of marijuana prohibition, Obama's only response was his silence. NORML and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition posted two of the most popular questions submitted to the White House’s recent Q&A on YouTube, alongside hundreds of others on the topic of marijuana law reform, but Obama offered no response or acknowledgement.
This recent attempt at citizen engagement, entitled "Your Interview With the President," was launched to coincide with the State of the Union Address. The concept was simple. Anyone could submit a text or video question through the White House YouTube channel, before the public voted on them over the course of the week. The highest rated questions would be selected for Obama to address. On Tuesday, January 24th, NORML submitted a question of our own, which inquired:

　
　

"With over 850,000 Americans arrested in 2010, for marijuana charges alone, and tens of billions of tax dollars being spent locking up non-violent marijuana users, isn’t it time we regulate and tax marijuana?"
The question exploded in popularity and received more than 4,000 votes in the first several hours, making it the 2nd highest rated question. Much to our surprise, that evening the question was removed from the YouTube channel and flagged as "inappropriate." In response, an upset contingent of citizens flooded the page with marijuana law reform questions. Initially, many of their inquiries were met with censorship as well, but by the end of the week it seemed the moderator had given up and most reform questions remained posted. When voting closed on January 28th, marijuana related questions accounted for 105 out of the top 160 questions and received more than 72,000 votes in total. Individual reposts of NORML’s question netted well over 20,000 combined. A video posted by Law Enforcement Against Prohibition came in second overall, and inquired:
"Mr. President, my name is Stephen Downing, and I'm a retired deputy chief of police from the Los Angeles Police Department. From my 20 years of experience I have come to see our country’s drug policies as a failure and a complete waste of criminal justice resources. According to the Gallup Poll, the number of Americans who support legalizing and regulating marijuana now outnumbers those who support continuing prohibition. What do you say to this growing voter constituency that wants more changes to drug policy than you have delivered in your first term?"
We waited with anticipation until last night when President Obama took to his webcam and began addressing the questions. After about an hour came and went with some unsubstantial discussion about jobs, a question from an internet comedian, talk of the Obama’s upcoming wedding anniversary, and the President offering to check out the resume of an attendee’s spouse, the "interview" ended, with not a single word spoken about marijuana prohibition. It seems they found silence to be more effective than censorship.
It is regrettable that since taking up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue it seems "hope and change" became "more of the same," at least on the marijuana issue. Raids against medical marijuana programs have continued and intensified under the current administration, while the Department of Justice lodged threats of intervention at California when they even considered legalizing cannabis in 2010. The United States currently arrests over 800,000 Americans every year for marijuana charges, the majority of which are for possession alone, to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars. The ongoing drug war continues to disproportionately affect communities of color, who are arrested in staggering numbers completely out of sync with their use rates. Under our unregulated system, children can currently access marijuana with greater ease than regulated products such as cigarettes or alcohol. Meanwhile, the legalization and regulation of cannabis has the potential to bring in large amounts of tax revenue and create a brand new, employment rich industry. All of these things taken into consideration make the president’s continual skirting of the issue all the more frustrating.
"Inappropriate?" What is more appropriate to discuss at a time like this than fiscal responsibility and civil liberties? President Obama once pledged to have "science and the scientific process…inform and guide decisions" of his Administration, and many of us are still holding out hope he will finally follow through on that promise.
Throughout his presidency, he played off the social media and grassroots strategies that propelled his 2010 campaign. President Obama utilized modern communication tools such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube throughout his first term to engage with the American people. The programs varied from YouTube video town halls, to Twitter Q&As, to petition drives, but the general concept was always to solicit policy and reform ideas from the general public, and address them in a formal and intelligent way. Many saw these as perfect opportunities to raise the issue of marijuana prohibition, and as a platform for an otherwise neglected issue to be seriously addressed. In practice, it never seemed to go that way for marijuana reform advocates. Through each of the previous nine efforts of this nature, questions on ending the drug war and legalizing marijuana have finished at the top every time and have typically dwarfed any other issue in volume of responses. Each time the administration has either ridiculed the question, ignored it entirely, or given it a vapid response. In this regard, the latest snub is simply a continuation of the status quo.
It is immensely disappointing that, yet again, the administration has declined the opportunity to discuss the very serious issue of ending marijuana prohibition in this country. For the ninth time, the White House has solicited the American people for direct input on the issues they cared about, and then, when the resulting answers called overwhelmingly for marijuana law reform, President Obama ignored the will of the American. Over half of the country now supports regulating and taxing marijuana; we can only hope that during the general election the issue is addressed with the respect and urgency it demands. If things continue as they are, President Obama very well may earn the dubious honor of running to the right of his predecessor George W. Bush on the marijuana issue.
President Obama once stated that marijuana legalization is an entirely "legitimate topic for debate." The American people are clearly ready for that debate, Mr. President. When will you be?
- Article originally from AlterNet.

 

[Bullfrog44]

This is only the tip of the ice burg, Obama promised a lot, but has delivered on nothing.

 

[dagnabit]

Well that's all fine and dandy I suppose but this is what it says at the DOJ site

The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws.

The DOJ may be considered an executive department but it's still part of the Judicial Branch.

while you may be considered wrong about the DOJ being part of the judicial branch you still try to squirm like there is some way you could be right....
nothing in what you provided suggests the DOJ or AG reports to the SCOTUS.
where is the SCOTUS's latest directive to the AG or the DOJ?
which justice wrote the ogden memo? and the cole?
ohhh wait they came from potus not scotus....
so the potus sends out directives,memos and appoints the department heads. a governmental org chart (provided earlier) lists DOJ as reporting to the executive and your own link says DOJ is an executive branch but you say otherwise...
brilliant!

Ah now I see the problem, you think this is a game. Try World of Warcraft.

i prefer MW3
i think trying to apologize for the asshat in chief is def. a game and a sad one at that.
this cocksucker is no better than the last cocksucker and quite possibly worse. he has certainly done more damage to MMJ!
but hey cheer for him if it makes ya feel good.
but do revisit your civics please?

 

[JJScorpio]

I get a kick out of some of these comments. The same ones bitching and complaining are the same ones that were begging people to vote against legalization.

Blame Obama, blame everyone else but don't blame yourselves. What you basically want is for Cannabis to stay illegal but you want protection for yourselves. Classic.......

 

[Maj.PotHead]

lmao thinking the same JJ

 

[JJScorpio]

Well these guys are truly something. They want Obama to go out on a limb after they themselves told him that the People of the State of California do not, and I repeat DO NOT want cannabis legalized. What's he supposed to do? His job is to act upon the majority of people. And a lot of these guys helped the majority say "no we do not want cannabis legalized"........

Put the blame where the blame belongs...... On yourselves. You gave him no leverage in asking for legalization.....