Obama will Prosecute Medical Marijuana Providers

[danut]

Danut - Obama was running against other people in his election. Who did the MMJ bill run against? You see he didnt have as many votes but the votes he did have made his victory that much more impressive. How many votes would the bill have gotten if on the same ballot iniatives to legalize cocain, streaking, and polygamy??

We were opposed at every step. It was a fight. I was put in jail just for collecting signatures. Today a judge in Madison Heights said from the bench "There will be no medical marijuana in my city." This is still a fight. There were active political campains against us. The federal drug czar came to Michigan to fight against it.

Bottom line .. two out of 3 people wanted a change in the policy.

What you seem to fail to see is that most of these same people voted for Obama. And some of them voted for Obama just because of the mmj issue.

Most voters viewed the election as a choice of the lessor of two evils. Some people viewed Obama as a messiah. Most didn't.

It will never be known just how much impact mmj had on the Obama vote. No one asked the question in the weeks before the election.

The confidence I have comes from my history. Its not arrogance but confidence in what I know and beleive, thats all.

Not saying good or bad .. just there.

Obama's stance on this issue isnt behind the people its just not what "you" want it to be at this point.

I don't think I'm alone there.

The question about Lynch's kids is complicated. They would not have seen him pulled out in cuffs. They would have been removed or sheltered from that if possible. The Social Workers would have come in before or during the arrest to remove. They would have been placed with close family if any were availible and wanted to take them in.

I think that is where they were sent to. Don't know. Sometimes these kids wind up in the overcrowded foster care system.

The longterm effects are real and I wont comment on them here cause I am not a therapist or Psych professional. To say they would feel responsible or guilty for the arrest is a stretch tho.

Not that they did something to deserve their parents legal problems. There will be an element that they did something to deserve being taken away from their homes and families. And no matter how good they try to be they just can't seem to fix it. There are lots of other tricks the subconcious can play.

There is trama .. and the impact could easily last a lifetime.

It's the children that suffer the most from the status quo.

If you can, please ask Obama to stop hurting the children.

 

[Jeff Lebowski]

actually, you are a democratic republic by definition. seems contradictory in the light of your opinion though... hehehehehe...

also, I do not need to prove what is evident i.e: that the current system does more harm than good and that to support it is to support the damage the system does daily.

peace out

...

 

[purpledomgoddes]

SEPARATION OF POWERS

EXECUTIVE BRANCH (PRESIDENT): has sole const power to ENFORCE THE LAW. us const, art II. exec cannot unilaterally declare an act of congress void, unconstituional or unenforceable. as the books currently read, 21 usc 802, 841, et al. declares mj illegal - regardless of intent/use. if... exec sign exec order declaring mj legal+ordering dea/doj/etc to stop enforcing law, would probably be impeached by congress. nor would that compel admin agencies to cease enforcing the law, as they take oath to uphold the law.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH (CONGRESS): have sole constitutional power to ENACT/WRITE the law. every law enacted by congress (or state legislature) is presumed to be constitutional on its face. until/unless declared void/unconstitutional by courts (preferably supreme court, so as not to have conflicts among circuits), statutes must be enforced. even if congress said moon was made of cheese, would be law until challenged in court and declared void/unconstitutional.
on this note, rep barney frank (mass) hyas introduced a med mj bill every yr for at least 5 yrs, in th house. will send u copy if u ask him. never makes it out of committee to full house vote. never close to senate. best opportunity for actual change in law is while dems have control of house. call congressmen/senators; is the law that they must acknowledge u and your issues, or can be brought up on ethics charges, etc. good book to have, that gov MUST send for free is: rules of parliamentary practice for the us house of reps, by thomas jefferson.

JUDICIAL BRANCH (COURTS): have sole constitutional power to INTERPRET THE LAW/DECLARE STATUTES UNCONSTITUTIONAL/VOID. in the case of raich v. ashcroft, 545 us 1 (2005)[a must read for folks serious about understanding the legal arguments re this subject matter; especially the footnotes], us supreme court declared that the controlled substance act was constitutional, that congress has power to regulate inter-state, and intra-state commerce. raich argued that since they had small med garden (nor cal), were not selling mj, and only used for meds, was not affecting commerce at all.
majority court disagreed, and said that congress' intent was/is to maintain higher street prices (to act as deterrent), and since raich was not purchasing mj off street, was influencing a decrease in price; thus congress had power to regulate that commodity.

COMITY
since the states are still sovereign nation-states, in a UNION, still retain their rights, and the PEOPLE therein, do do as they please. us const, amends IX, X. may be good place to start argument. but initial step is getting over problem w/ jurisdiction of commodities by congress. already stare decis.
could argue that should be civil/in rem case, like when irs seizes money, and case captions read: u.s. v. $10,000. there is no actual injury in fact to persons or property, so should be governed by common law. difficult to do if not keen on law, as courts generally operate under admiralty/maritime law - even if not said.

INTERNATIONAL LAW
still prohibited under un convention on dangerous drugs, which specifically states that mj has "no known medical uses"(circa 1969). only country not party to treaty, beleive, is india, where held as sacrament.

hope this helps.

 

[Tony Aroma]

EXECUTIVE BRANCH (PRESIDENT): has sole const power to ENFORCE THE LAW. us const, art II. exec cannot unilaterally declare an act of congress void, unconstituional or unenforceable. as the books currently read, 21 usc 802, 841, et al. declares mj illegal - regardless of intent/use. if... exec sign exec order declaring mj legal+ordering dea/doj/etc to stop enforcing law, would probably be impeached by congress. nor would that compel admin agencies to cease enforcing the law, as they take oath to uphold the law.

That is all certainly true. And if we're talking about repealing the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), then it could not be done by the president alone. As you said, only Congress can make or change laws. And LEO is required to enforce existing laws, regardless of what the president or anybody else says.

But the CSA is a tricky bit of legislation. It gives sole power over scheduling of substances to the attorney general. So if we're just talking about removing marijuana from schedule 1, then all it takes is a decision by the AG. Who happens to report to the president. So while the president could not legalize marijuana, he could quickly and easily decriminalize it by having it removed from schedule 1.

Of course I'm ignoring the fact that the federal government did not have the power to create the CSA in the first place. Article 1, section 8 strictly limits the power of Congress and the types of laws it can enact. But that's a whole 'nother story.

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

So fuck every med patient?
And yes, you do need to prove a point if you are going to state it, pretty simple concept. Passive people such as yourself with always suck off the teet of success and damn the world when it isn't your oyster.

look kid, I never mentioned anything about med patients, so why r u implying such a thing? moreover, you have started with personal attacks, so your post got reported and you go on ignore.

bye bye

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

Why is this thread open. The title isnt even accurate. Obama is not a judge. he cant prosecute

 

[purpledomgoddes]

That is all certainly true. And if we're talking about repealing the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), then it could not be done by the president alone. As you said, only Congress can make or change laws. And LEO is required to enforce existing laws, regardless of what the president or anybody else says.

But the CSA is a tricky bit of legislation. It gives sole power over scheduling of substances to the attorney general. So if we're just talking about removing marijuana from schedule 1, then all it takes is a decision by the AG. Who happens to report to the president. So while the president could not legalize marijuana, he could quickly and easily decriminalize it by having it removed from schedule 1.

Of course I'm ignoring the fact that the federal government did not have the power to create the CSA in the first place. Article 1, section 8 strictly limits the power of Congress and the types of laws it can enact. But that's a whole 'nother story.

havnt studied the actual process in a few years, but the re-sceduling of a narcotic is a bit of an involved process. dont believe the ag can just sin a memo and say that it is now sched II. it will still need to be amended/repeealed and re-enacted by congress.

what's more, congress could simply re-write/re-enact the law in a craftier way. they would even do it as a symbolic measure to assert their law-enacting power. they did that w/ guantanamo detaineees.

feel you on the csa, and commerce clause; but it gets real deep, as u said. reason for congress' extended power is due to lots of fed manip over time+states' need for fed support during initial statehood.

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.



us const, art I, sec 8, cls 17, 18.


the proverbial 'cover all' clause. a lot of state land has been ceded to fed gov, w/out public knowledge. states and fed make all type of arrangements that initiate fed authority.
sovereign citizen movements have pointed this out, but try to challenge jurisdiction in admiralty/maritime court (all of them). will have to really know the business.

actually argued up to us supreme court twice (over 400 documents/motions/etc filed in dist/circ court). jurisdcition is most important aspect of case - gov will always assert it. since us sup ct made raich decision, another approach may be warranted.


thx for the input.

 

[Jeff Lebowski]

look kid, I never mentioned anything about med patients, so why r u implying such a thing? moreover, you have started with personal attacks, so your post got reported and you go on ignore.

bye bye

You say you don't mention med patients while claiming that voting is pointless? How are those two not related? Again, I ask you to prove clearly and concisely how voting is pointless? You have yet to back up your words and yes, it was personal. As a med patient I take it very personal that someone would like to deny my right to vote if I can use cannabis as a medicine. Thanks for the report, put me on ignore, but you still lack the education/information to back up your posting.

 

[danut]

since us sup ct made raich decision, another approach may be warranted.

Something overlooked in the raich case.

It was about civil law and not criminal law.

One justice that found in favor of the government noted that it would have been a different result if it had been a criminal case.

 

[nephilthim]

on the eve of charles lynch sentancing . obama administration attorney eric holder said c.l. prosecution is consistent with the policies of oabama administration,which has contended that c.l. broke state law.
two problems with this contention.1feds don't haven't any jurisidiction to interpret or prosecute state laws.2.the feds haven't submitted any evidence to the former on the eve of his sentancing.
so what differance is their between the two parties?were still in iraq and Iran next? afghanistan /pakistan killing people in mudhuts with predators?what for?
or your beloved two party bankrupting our nation by repealing the glass steagall act which kept investment banks seperate from commercial banks.or the derivitive mess which makes 6 major banks technically insolvent.the current administration has aquiesced to the banks current lies about their balance sheets.with inflated values on properties that are worth nothing to their value or piling debts into one quarter to appear that they are making money in the next 3?
so whos to say who would be worse? not that I care, but the issue being moot as a point of conjecture.we can say that obamas comments have certainly been emasculating and dismissive earning the well deserved ire for those that chose the audacity of dope!
think in terms of conflicts of interest ,,objectivity,motive,in politics and posts here much to the obliviousness of some.

 

[Blue Dot]

on the eve of charles lynch sentancing . obama administration attorney eric holder said c.l. prosecution is consistent with the policies of oabama administration,which has contended that c.l. broke state law.
two problems with this contention.1feds don't haven't any jurisidiction to interpret or prosecute state laws.2.the feds haven't submitted any evidence to the former on the eve of his sentancing.

This is a good point.

Obviously the feds feel they are in a position to determine whether the defendant broke state law.

The ironic thing about this is what we need is a defendant who has been aquitted in state court then passed on to fed court.
In that instance the feds could not over-ride the states aquittal (according to holders statement).


Isn't this part of the problem, that people like CL are just shuttled straight to the fed court bypassing a state court that could ultimately be used as a precedent in his defense in a fed court?

In other words, DEMAND to be tried in state court FIRST because if you are found innocent this will be evidence that you should be aquitted in fed court.

If you are THEN found guilty in fed court then it's proof the feds are going against what holder said and in essence the feds would then be held in contempt (as they have always been in every case throughout the history of the government).

What I'm saying is I think the feds are trying to dismiss holders statement. I even read in another article posted here on icmag that some LEO called holders statement "an offhand remark". WTF, How can a major policy shift be an "offhand remark" or "consistent with current policy".

I think eric holder needs to step up and clarify this if this is what he actually meant, which I hope it was.

 

[kmk420kali]

This is a good point.

Obviously the feds feel they are in a position to determine whether the defendant broke state law.

The ironic thing about this is what we need is a defendant who has been aquitted in state court then passed on to fed court (according to holders statement).

In that instance the feds could not over-ride the states aquittal.

Isn't this part of the problem, that people like CL are just shuttled straight to the fed court bypassing a state court that could ultimately be used as a presedent in his defense in a fed court.

In other words, DEMAND to be tried in state court FIRST because if you are found innocent this will be evidence that you should be aquitted in fed court.

If you are THEN found guilty in fed court then it's proof the feds are going against what holder said and in essence the feds would then be held in contempt (as they have always been in every case throughout the history of the government).

What I'm saying is I think the feds are trying to dismiss holders statement. I even read in another article posted here on icmag that some LEO called holders statement "an offhand remark". WTF, How can a major policy shift be an "offhand remark" or "consistent with current policy".

I think eric holder needs to step up and clarify this if this is what he actually meant, which I hope it was.

Not only that, but I feel that the Jerry Brown should be CL's personal Atty!! It is the State Laws that he has complied with, so it should be up to the State to deal with discrepancies with the Feds--

 

[Blue Dot]

Not only that, but I feel that the Jerry Brown should be CL's personal Atty!! It is the State Laws that he has complied with, so it should be up to the State to deal with discrepancies with the Feds--

That's not what I said.


I believe CL broke state law by profiting as per my earlier post.

What I don't believe is that the fed gov has provided substantiation to their claim that CL broke state law or that they should be in that postion to determine that in the first place.

All the feds offered was a memo saying "they believed he broke state law".

Actually they didn't even go that far, all they said was that the prosescution was "consistent with policy AND holders statement."

The "and holders statement" leads me to believe they believe the prosecution is righteous because they believe CL broke state law but they sure don't offer up any evidence to support that claim and that's my beef.



Like I said, we need a non-profiteering dispensary to be acquitted under state law and then see if the feds will prosecute anyway.

Most non-profiteering dispensaries would welcome the chance to be acquitted under state law if they thought it would provide precedent evidence for an acquittal in a fed case.

 

[SemperAltus]

Just so yall know California Cannabis Incorporated is a fantasy, I don't really sell weed.


AWWW FUCKING CHRIST... This sucks.

But then again they claim he sold cannabis to minors, (because they were under 21) and apparently a lot of his herb was found in non patient hands.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]

ya and if remember correctly. the reason he was in trouble is because his security guard was making side sales not even at the club or on the clock...

 

[Blue Dot]

I don't think the feds would step in for a few "side sales".

 

[SemperAltus]

I don't think the feds would step in for a few "side sales".

hahahaha

this wasnt like a weeks ago this happened awhile ago.

and there the dea their pricks

these are the guys that wear shirts that say "you grow, we show" they dont care how big or small.

 

[danut]

I don't think the feds would step in for a few "side sales".

So he must be guilty because he was arrested?

I'm guessing that you have never been arrested for anything before.

The feds were after him because he was a large supplier of medical marijuana.
Got that?

Next you think it is OK for him to go to jail because he violated your idea of what a non-profit effort is supposed to be.

I've seen that being argued here several times. You got it wrong.

Look .. the federal AG just held a trial and found CL guilty of violating state law. No evidence presented. No testimony. No defense allowed.

Doesn't that last bit bother you a little?

State law couldn't be applied against CL. Which is why he went to federal court.

 

[Pirate]

I think what everybody is missing is this:

ONE SINGLE SEED is a Federal Offense. Period !!

Even Eric Holder cannot change this. The law is the law. If we don't want to be prosecuted for growing Medical MJ............You must change the Federal laws. They might say its "Not our Policy" to go after MMJ...........But the fact is...........It is still illegal and Eric Holder himself would be liable if he did not follow Federal laws himself.

What your asking is for the chief law enforcement officer of the land to................"Just Ignore Federal Law".

It ain't gonna happen.

 

[ReverendRFB]

I think what everybody is missing is this:

ONE SINGLE SEED is a Federal Offense. Period !!

What your asking is for the chief law enforcement officer of the land to................"Just Ignore Federal Law".

It ain't gonna happen.

Sums it all up for me..

I'm surprised that there might have still been a few souls who thought Obama was the end-all. Just another suit.

 

[kmk420kali]

That's not what I said.

I know, I just have learned to ignore when you go into the "profit" thing...since there are non-profit orgs all over the place, who's employees are making big $$--