L.A D.A. says ALL Dispensaries Illegal & ALL Will be Prosecuted

[FrankRizzo]

It is always darkest before the light. They are grasping at straws. This is horse shit.

 

[IE2KS_KUSH]

I had another thought,
why now?
Why do you suppose that all of the sudden they are trying to pull this shit? Surely they have their city attorneys or had them looking at this from all angles, but why now? I mean if this is legit, then why wouldn't they have done it a year, or 2 years, or 3 years ago? I wonder if this is in fact just a scare tactic, and that they will not be able to implement this? If they do though, like I was saying, it's going to be a shit storm for anyone that wants to go the coop/collective route, more than 99 plants on any property and the feds will be there w/ bells on, regardless of whether or not you are "following the letter of the law." I think they have proven that time and time again already, and then of course the locals can simply wash their hands and say that they had nothing to do w/ it, it was "those guys over there."
Seems like a chicken shit way to squeeze out MMJ from the area.

 

[Cinderella99]

Dude...Part of the fucken deal that Cali made by Brown mandating "no-profit" was a way to get the Feds off of Cali's shit...

National media reports of neon flashing fekin pot leaves - business open 24-7- is why they had to curb the enthusiasm. Point blank: It was getting the Feds attention, Hello.

Law and business are still trying to reconcile the issue of MMJ. This may or may not be a flash in the pan, but an effort to bring MMJ back to the grass roots that were intended. Law says they can cut the club profit...They'll do it without upsetting true MMJ constituency. They've done it here in SD first.

Best way to prevent this is to make the case that these for-profit clubs serve the sick better than a grassroots system of coops...

Alright, I'm out...Goddfellas on Bravo right now...

 

[Blue Dot]

Best way to prevent this is to make the case that these for-profit clubs serve the sick better than a grassroots system of coops...

But their outrageous prices DON"T serve the sick, just the rockstars, so they have no case to be made.

 

[BurmeseDragon]

Good I look forward to murdering you!

Seems you all want to be my boat to Columbia were I get to kill a columbian not hiding out!

It seems that nobody in Spanish class understood a god damn thing!

 

[zenoonez]

But their outrageous prices DON"T serve the sick, just the rockstars, so they have no case to be made.

What are you the outrageous police? Who are you to determine what is a good price and what isn't a good price. If Donald Trump wants to go smoke a j he should be able to do so in a nice club that caters to those patients with money. Now that club should no doubt have the BEST weed in town but that is up to the clientele to ultimately decide.

 

[Blue Dot]

If Donald Trump wants to go smoke a j he should be able to do so in a nice club that caters to those patients with money.

Do I really need to point out what is wrong with this sentence?

 

[Omerta]

you guys dont realize you arent a huge majority, it doesnt need to be how it is. it is way fucking out of hand.

they are already shutting down clubs left and right, no more stupid dea swat team raids with m16s, they realized they dont need that shit and it attracts media attention. theyve closed down about 40+ clubs within the last couple months. they plan to shut the majority of them from what i heard....

PS: im no anti pot guy, most of you have seen my old grows on here, this explosion caused by the documentaries on tv has ruined the scene plain and simple. huge amount of quality members no longer post cause of the people im speaking about who are now clearly on icmag polluting the forums with nonsense.

 

[VirginHarvester]

Both sides make it sound like there is no alternative, when the obvious one is true collectives the way the law intended.

Can you tell me what the legislation called for or how they would be different if operating under the law's original intent and spirit?

Fatigues, you seem to have a pretty good grasp of the situation. Do you believe this means most LA dispensaries/coops will be closed in the near future?

 

[Blue Dot]

Can you tell me what the legislation called for or how they would be different if operating under the law's original intent and spirit?

The legislation actually called for the "encouragment of the state gov to set up distribution of MMJ".

This never happened so the "ganjapenurers" took it upon themselves.

With Obama saying the feds will not intercede when obeying both fed and state law maybe it's time to sue the state of cali for not being more "encouraged" with distributing meds.

I mean, obama is basically giving them as much encouragement as they are gonna get short of full blown leagalization so maybe now it's time for the state to fill in the dispensaries shoes if the state chooses to shut them down.

But remember the state has to do this without making a profit but they can just call their profits "beuracratic administration fees" just like the dispensarey owners call their profit salary. lol

 

[VirginHarvester]

But remember the state has to do this without making a profit but they can just call their profits "beuracratic administration fees" just like the dispensarey owners call their profit salary. lol

Yeah, I'm quite sure the state would find its way around that.

 

[Zeinth]

1st..

1st..

1st they scare the coops with legal action..pow... already see on tracker, about 5 coops saying they are now closed for remods...

heard court ordered paper work going out demanding info from each l.a. coop...

if the coops dont respond to the summins..then what. 800 hundred coops..it costs 10,000 a raid...

 

[Blue Dot]

if the coops dont respond to the summins..then what. 800 hundred coops..it costs 10,000 a raid...

Ugh. Why don't people get this? It doesn't cost the city ANYTHING for a raid. They use YOUR tax money.

Hell, at 10,000 a raid those cops probably make sweet hazard pay and the city can justify the expenditure by making the city "safe" and look good in the process to their conservative constituents.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

Call it what it is. The department is seriously hurting for cash and this is straight out robbery to fund their pockets.


This is going to be 'bad' but the backlash is going to be a big win for everyone. Here's hoping the jerk actually goes through with it. Tough times ahead folks.

 

[fatigues]

Fatigues, you seem to have a pretty good grasp of the situation. Do you believe this means most LA dispensaries/coops will be closed in the near future?

In my case, the honest answer is “I don’t know”. I think a more accurate answer is: “they don’t know, either.”

If this was a simple matter of polarized politics without more, we could predict what “The Man” would do. But just as there is no one “Man”, there is no one answer.

If it was a simple matter of “following the law”, then to take that argument to its logical conclusion, there would not have been ANY medical marijuana in California at all since 1996. Never mind Prop 215 – it’s still illegal under Federal Law. End of argument, if you take the strictly rational legal analysis to its final conclusion.

But theory is one thing; reality is another. The situation on the ground has always been more nuanced than that -- and not just in California. Possession is a crime everywhere in the USA under most circumstances under state law, federal law, or both. Even then, most voters don’t want to see the law enforced as a priority – if they want to see it enforced at all. And so it goes.

When your legal analysis must include a very real estimate of how zealous the local voters wants the laws enforced, it’s bound to end up in a muddle. Taking it a step further, some prefer the laws on the books were not on the books at all. Others wish to act, but have budgets controlled by mayors and councils with very real concerns about getting run over on the local news by some footage of a dying patient in a wheelchair. And when the people with the money and budgets to authorize overtime and make promotions in police forces say “no”, then matters can end up being very different.

Inherently, no matter how “legal” or “illegal” something is, in connection with Marijuana in California under state law, there is an underlying legal atmosphere in which thinks can only be measured in terms of shades of grey: When will the Feds intervene – when won’t they? When will the courts support the law, when will they act to gut it. When will prosecutors step in – when will they turn a blind eye. This whole political/social support context begins to pervade every aspect of how marijuana is treated and deal with.

How much is too much? How little is too little? What will authority tolerate and look the other way on?; what will they not tolerate? What about the voters? How does this vary county by county, DA by DA, sheriff by sheriff, mayor by mayor, council by council, judge by judge?

So in a real sense, public opinion is as important as - and frequently more important than - any law on the books. People are divided on this issue. While there are pockets of extreme support and, conversely, extreme opposition to MMJ – for the most part it’s a pretty divided community with a whole spectrum of opinions, pro and con present everywhere. Even a minority of 40% is a pretty damn big minority when the question is whether a person views something as a crime or not.

When 40-60% of your population (depending on what local county/city you are discussing) don’t even agree that a crime should be a crime, you don’t have to know more than that to recognize that this is a battle that is not going to go smoothly and the only thing that is certain is that uncertainty lurks around every corner.

We do know that People v. Mentch has been on the books as the unquestioned law of California for eleven months. If D.A. Cooley had wanted to jump on the dispensaries and shut them all down, he has had the legal authority to shut almost every dispensary in L.A. down since November 2008 (I mean dispensary, not a patient run co-op/collective). Despite many suggestions to the contrary, this is, legally speaking, NOT a grey question in the least.

The legal status of over-the-counter dispensaries is now a black and white legal certainty in California. The owners of dispensaries are not primary caregivers, the bud-tenders can’t shelter under Prop 215 either. It’s settled law. Bust ‘em and arrest those employees. Seize the weed – take the cash. Seize the rented property under Federal law if you like. You can still ignore the patients entirely. If your goal is just to take down the dispensaries, there is no court which will stand in your way.

Except the court of public opinion, that is. And I think it’s fair to say that’s the rocks where all of this is being caught upon – and foundering here and there.

Police want one thing, courts want another, D.A.s have prosecutorial discretion to contend – and they have to be mindful of real budget concerns and whether the money will still be there when things get politically uncomfortable. Mayors and councils have voters to worry about, budget expenses and real concerns about whether or not a massive crackdown will result in riots or in growing signs of civil disobedience. Inherently, there will be multiple stakeholders with varying points of view.

Even this recent throwing down of the gauntlet in L.A. takes place in an atmosphere where there are signature gatherers, both PAID and volunteer, afoot in these same communities seeking to nullify the illegality at its source. It’s one thing as a D.A. to bring a case in the name of “The People”. It’s quite another to recognize that sometimes “The ACTUAL People” have very different ideas about what the law should be and what it is that you should be doing, no matter what the law currently says or does not say.

I do think that there has been a broadening majority viewpoint that the dispensary situation in LA has spun out of control and that “some” legal steps may be “necessary”, and this more than anything else has emboldened Cooley to act. But even in that context, what “some” means and what “necessary” means varies from voter to voter.

We’ll see some movement to shut down dispensaries, but how fast, how far, and how pervasive the prosecutions will be remains to be seen. I think even the police and D.A. have no clue as to how far they will go. People are making this up as it goes along. It’s a work-in-progress.

We live in interesting times.

 

[ballplayer 2]

I firmly believe direct democracy is the only way to go on an issue like this. I believe very soon there will be more in favor of legalization, than against. The legalization argument holds even more weight and logic when considering the financial implications of ending the war on MJ.

The style of government we operate under in this country is supposed to be setup to respect minority rights, as direct democracies tend to trample minority rights. Did you feel your views and rights were respected when we were the minority? We are now likely a majority, and still can barely get respect. Now that we will likely be the majority very soon (if not already) I say its time to do some trampling of our own with respect to this issue.

Enough of the foolishness, let the DEA target cartels instead mom and pop MJ farmers. Police agencies should do real police work: rid the country of violent criminals and white collar criminals/fools who aspire to create two classes: the super wealthy and everyone else. Ultimately the white collar criminals are nearly as bad as violent criminals because they do things legally (like 30% interest rates on credit cards) and claim to do it for your own good/or the good of society. Sorry for the off topic rant.

National referendum, direct democracy FTW.

 

[TrueNorthStar]

In my case, the honest answer is “I don’t know”. I think a more accurate answer is: “they don’t know, either.”

If this was a simple matter of polarized politics without more, we could predict what “The Man” would do. But just as there is no one “Man”, there is no one answer.

If it was a simple matter of “following the law”, then to take that argument to its logical conclusion, there would not have been ANY medical marijuana in California at all since 1996. Never mind Prop 215 – it’s still illegal under Federal Law. End of argument, if you take the strictly rational legal analysis to its final conclusion.

But theory is one thing; reality is another. The situation on the ground has always been more nuanced than that -- and not just in California. Possession is a crime everywhere in the USA under most circumstances under state law, federal law, or both. Even then, most voters don’t want to see the law enforced as a priority – if they want to see it enforced at all. And so it goes.

When your legal analysis must include a very real estimate of how zealous the local voters wants the laws enforced, it’s bound to end up in a muddle. Taking it a step further, some prefer the laws on the books were not on the books at all. Others wish to act, but have budgets controlled by mayors and councils with very real concerns about getting run over on the local news by some footage of a dying patient in a wheelchair. And when the people with the money and budgets to authorize overtime and make promotions in police forces say “no”, then matters can end up being very different.

Inherently, no matter how “legal” or “illegal” something is, in connection with Marijuana in California under state law, there is an underlying legal atmosphere in which thinks can only be measured in terms of shades of grey: When will the Feds intervene – when won’t they? When will the courts support the law, when will they act to gut it. When will prosecutors step in – when will they turn a blind eye. This whole political/social support context begins to pervade every aspect of how marijuana is treated and deal with.

How much is too much? How little is too little? What will authority tolerate and look the other way on?; what will they not tolerate? What about the voters? How does this vary county by county, DA by DA, sheriff by sheriff, mayor by mayor, council by council, judge by judge?

So in a real sense, public opinion is as important as - and frequently more important than - any law on the books. People are divided on this issue. While there are pockets of extreme support and, conversely, extreme opposition to MMJ – for the most part it’s a pretty divided community with a whole spectrum of opinions, pro and con present everywhere. Even a minority of 40% is a pretty damn big minority when the question is whether a person views something as a crime or not.

When 40-60% of your population (depending on what local county/city you are discussing) don’t even agree that a crime should be a crime, you don’t have to know more than that to recognize that this is a battle that is not going to go smoothly and the only thing that is certain is that uncertainty lurks around every corner.

We do know that People v. Mentch has been on the books as the unquestioned law of California for eleven months. If D.A. Cooley had wanted to jump on the dispensaries and shut them all down, he has had the legal authority to shut almost every dispensary in L.A. down since November 2008 (I mean dispensary, not a patient run co-op/collective). Despite many suggestions to the contrary, this is, legally speaking, NOT a grey question in the least.

The legal status of over-the-counter dispensaries is now a black and white legal certainty in California. The owners of dispensaries are not primary caregivers, the bud-tenders can’t shelter under Prop 215 either. It’s settled law. Bust ‘em and arrest those employees. Seize the weed – take the cash. Seize the rented property under Federal law if you like. You can still ignore the patients entirely. If your goal is just to take down the dispensaries, there is no court which will stand in your way.

Except the court of public opinion, that is. And I think it’s fair to say that’s the rocks where all of this is being caught upon – and foundering here and there.

Police want one thing, courts want another, D.A.s have prosecutorial discretion to contend – and they have to be mindful of real budget concerns and whether the money will still be there when things get politically uncomfortable. Mayors and councils have voters to worry about, budget expenses and real concerns about whether or not a massive crackdown will result in riots or in growing signs of civil disobedience. Inherently, there will be multiple stakeholders with varying points of view.

Even this recent throwing down of the gauntlet in L.A. takes place in an atmosphere where there are signature gatherers, both PAID and volunteer, afoot in these same communities seeking to nullify the illegality at its source. It’s one thing as a D.A. to bring a case in the name of “The People”. It’s quite another to recognize that sometimes “The ACTUAL People” have very different ideas about what the law should be and what it is that you should be doing, no matter what the law currently says or does not say.

I do think that there has been a broadening majority viewpoint that the dispensary situation in LA has spun out of control and that “some” legal steps may be “necessary”, and this more than anything else has emboldened Cooley to act. But even in that context, what “some” means and what “necessary” means varies from voter to voter.

We’ll see some movement to shut down dispensaries, but how fast, how far, and how pervasive the prosecutions will be remains to be seen. I think even the police and D.A. have no clue as to how far they will go. People are making this up as it goes along. It’s a work-in-progress.

We live in interesting times.

Very well said!

 

[Amstel Light]

I had another thought,
why now?
.

maybe it's large enough now that taking them down will turn them the profit they were looking for?


Alright, I'm out...Goddfellas on Bravo right now...[/quote]
how can you watch that all choped up on bravo?

Call it what it is. The department is seriously hurting for cash and this is straight out robbery to fund their pockets.


.

 

[PharmaCan]

I have a different take on this.

State guidelines say that a caregiver, and, presumably, a grower or other person who runs a co-op, is entitled to "reasonable compensation" for their services. What needs to be done then is to define "reasonable compensation". I can think of no better place to turn for this definition than to our public employees. I think it is fair to assume that their compensation is "reasonable"; and I doubt you can find any of them that would swear under oath that their compensation is excessive.

The director of Water and Power for the City of Los Angeles makes roughly $350,000/year. That is in addition to his health insurance, pension and whatever other perks he receives.

An upper level management position anywhere in the state pays at least $150,000 per year, in addition to health insurance, pension plan and any other perks they receive.

Keep in mind that public employee pension plans are extravagant beyond belief. These people can retire at an fairly young age and begin receiving 90% of their salary for their highest paid year - and that's the starting point. Every year they receive a cost of living increase. While public employee pensions are funded by continuing taxpayer contributions to their pension funds, a private individual would have to sock away millions of dollars in a retirement account to accomplish the same thing.

Anyone running a co-op deserves compensation at least as reasonable as that paid to public employees. Considering the huge amounts of money it will take to pay a pension of $150,000 to $350,000 per year for a period of 40-50 years (retire at 50; die at 90-100), it is not unreasonable for a co-op to dedicate $3million to $4million per year as compensation and benefits just for the CEO of that co-op. When these costs are deducted from the gross income received by the co-op, a profitable dispensary is suddenly transformed into a not-for-profit organization.

Using the salary and benefits schedule of public employees as a model for compensation within the mmj industry is a powerful weapon that Mr. Cooley and his ilk have seemed to overlook. Wouldn't it be sweet to conform to this model and then be able to throw it in the face of the drug warriors? ...and there isn't a fucking thing they could do about it without declaring their own salaries and benefits "unreasonable".

PC

 

[nomaad]

Fatigues: Well-reasoned response. Thanks.