Feds threaten owners of California marijuana dispensaries

[pscot]

He must have had his fingers crossed.

Stepping up an aggressive policy toward medical marijuana dispensaries in California, U.S. attorneys are warning landlords that they may seize properties of anyone leasing space to marijuana stores.

Letters sent this week to targeted dispensaries in San Diego, San Francisco, Marin and elsewhere warn that California's medical marijuana law is no protection against property seizure or prosecution under federal law.

The letters demand that landlords or operators "discontinue the sale and/or distribution of marijuana ... within 45 days."

The specter of new federal intervention against California dispensaries follows the disclosure this week that the Internal Revenue Service is seeking a $2.4 million tax penalty against California's largest medical marijuana provider, the Harborside Health Center in Oakland.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/06/3965935/feds-threaten-california-medical.html#ixzz1a2VQH5Wj

[RKP5637]

1. "Change we can believe in." All of the problems in this country and this

is a priority. Yet another WTF. Election time's coming, guess he wants to look tough on drugs. This crap gets stupider every day ...

[Taverner]

15. How DARE you accuse our Dear Leader of lying...

:sarcasm:

[arcane1]

2. So, conservatives, who hate the federal government and love state's rights:

Where are you on THIS topic???

[GodlessBiker]

3. Fucking bastards.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

4. In the LBN version of this story....

...one poster is claiming that this action is only for dispensaries too close to schools. But I can't find a link for this assertion. Everything I'm reading so far says they're threatening every dispensary in the state.

Has anyone else heard that this threat is limited to shops too close to schools, and if so, would you please post a link?

Thank you.

[Upton]

5. It's apparently ALL the dispensaries..

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44806723/ns/today-today_news/t/calif-pot-dispensaries-told-feds-shut-down#.To4gmLKWrgY

[RKP5637]

9. Welcome to Police State USA! n/t

[Robb]

23. Actually, your link says only 12.

Unless there are only 12 dispensaries in CA? :shrug:

[Pitr]

12. There is a private school no less than 2.5 blocks away from a dispensary

Does it mean the Feds want to shut it down?

They tell me that they are doing very well, no credit card issues (I had heard about the issues in Colorado Springs, and asked the workers directly) and have good quality weed on stock. They'll give me a good deal on the shakes (especially when it's the product I want but ran low). I have had a long and beautiful relationship with them. Everyone knows me by my first name now.

[abelenkpe]

6. WTF??! nt

[RKP5637]

7. It's another case of follow the money trail. It has nothing to do with humanity, it's

all about MONEY and keeping Big Pharma happy. It's another load of BS, yet again.

[Old and In the Way]

8. I don't understand why the DOJ/WH doesn't take a high-profile position on this.

Time for them to do some house-cleaning at DEA. Who's going to complain? State's Rights, small government republicans? Democrats who understand that marijuana is a harmless substance with important medical benefits for sick people? Or does he want Big Pharma/Big Alcohol to run our federal policies on this subject?

Obama can really score some easy points, getting tough on out-of-control leftover Bush appointees who are no doubt behind these assaults...don't wait for republicans to outflank you on this issue, Barack.

[Pitr]

10. How about Obama honoring his promise made in 2009?

AND listening to the #1 topic on both the online WH petition and the campaign issue.

It's past time for him to order his Justice Department to stand down on the dispensaries (who benefit PEOPLE) and start prosecuting real criminals like Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, and the other Republicans that have got away with breaking the law and getting the government not to care (they benfit NO-ONE except themselves).

[Xicano]

11. Two Words: "Jury Nullification!"

A big reason why the founders included into our system the right of a trial from a jury of our peers as the last vestige against an arbitrary government. It is the right of every juror to judge the facts as well as the law and vote their conscious without fear of reprisal if their vote is unpopular.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Jury nullification or not, the property remains confiscated.

The governemt takes the property and vehicles and furnishing, sells them all at auction for pennies on the dollar, and if the case rules against them they MIGHT have to repay only such amount as they sold the property for. Don't know how it is lately, but when this confiscation racket started inthe 80s you found a lot of cops driving a lot of really expensive cars, bought at these auctions.

[Xicano]

17. Without jury nullification you still get all that plus they put the person in jail

Jury nullification prevents the person who has really done nothing wrong from going to jail. I think that is something very important.

Not only that, but, also, it will reduce large amounts of people sitting in jail for no reason and make more room in jail for those who have committed criminal acts.

Secondly, if the person is found "not guilty" by a jury. I would imagine that they could demand their property back, or sue for compensation of property taken but not given back.

But again the most important thing is keeping people who haven't done anything wrong from being locked up in jail.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. I absolutely agree. I was just saying, they're gonna git ya either way.

That's the way the game is rigged.

[Xicano]

21. The system is so unjust. Its very frustrating..

:(

[Cool Logic]

13. The same powers Congress referenced to justify HCR, authorize all fedgov drug laws.

If, like me, you believe that health care is not interstate commerce, then it is logical to assume that growing marijuana plants in your backyard is not interstate commerce. With the exception of drugs that are actually transported interstate, the possession of narcotics is no less "interstate commerce" than walking your dog.

On the other hand, State drug laws are Constitutional, for State govs can act in any sphere not prohibited to them, as defined by the 10th Amendment. Similarly, the fedgov can only legislate in areas specifically delegated to it in Article 1 of the Constitution.

A substantial amount of fedgov law regulating numerous spheres, is legally premised on the exercise of the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause, along with the Fourteenth Amendment and spending power, allows Congress to do things that effects the States.

Most of the un-Constitutional expansions of fedgov power were initially struck down by the SC. In an effort to get around the Constitution, legislators proposed increasing the number of justices on the SC from nine to fifteen. Subsequently, the SC Court reversed course and upheld the un-Constitutional legislation.

Nevertheless, for those who can read, comprehend, and reason, it is clear that the drug war and the laws that prohibit the private consumption of certain drugs are un-Constitutional. Prohibition laws, themselves, violate every tenet of limited government that is embodied in the Constitution. That is why it was necessary to amend the Constitution in order to prohibit the drug known as alcohol. In view of that, how can it possibly be Constitutional to prohibit other drugs without going through the formal amendment process?

The fedgov should either abide by the 9th and 10th Amendments, or repeal them. To pretend that they do not exist is an insult to the People's intelligence and an offense to their heritage.

Note to Conservatives: If the Obama's health care legislation is Unconstitutional, so are federal Drug Laws.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Xicano]

16. Here's the thing about their citing the interstate commerce clause

This is a rant against them, not you Cool Logic.. :)

--

First off, they're full of shit. Interstate commerce means interstate commerce, it does NOT mean activity which has an effect on interstate commerce.

That's their argument by-the-way. That not participating in interstate commerce still effects interstate commerce, ergo, they (congress) have a right to regulate. :eyes:

Anyway, lets go ahead and take them at their ridiculous word and agree that even if a product is only locally produced and sold that nevertheless since it still has an effect on the interstate market for that product, therefore, that gives congress the authority to regulate. Ok, then what they're saying is there's a legal market for Pot.

Sorry you fuckers in government you can't have it both ways. You can't on one hand say a product is illegal, then, on the other say this product that is only locally produced and sold still effects the interstate market for that product. What fucking market are you referring to? Show me where there is an interstate market for Pot. I know there's a 'black-market' for Pot. But where's this interstate market you're talking about?

What it is, is that you fuckers in government are trying to say its legal, so therefore its illegal. And the ONLY reason why you say such a fucking stupid thing is because some of the 1% who pay you bribe money tell you they don't want Pot to be legal because that would mean they will lose lots of money selling their crappy full of side-effects, patented, chemical drugs --and-- the private for profit prisons will lose lots of profits off of imprisoning people who have done absolutely nothing wrong.

SHAME, SHAME, SHAME, SHAME you motherfuckers. You disgust the fuck out of me. You disgust the fuck out of all the Americans who fought and died for our country. You disgust the fuck out of the founders of our country. You disgust the fuck out of general human decency. You are nothing but fucking pieces of shit - (my apologies for insulting shit). Look at the mirror, look at the fucking sell-out/traitor looking back at you.

And you wonder why the 99% are fucking sick of you.....Because they're sick of your shit that's why!!



:rant:

[Cool Logic]

22. I applaud you rant, for the fedgov's disregard for the Constitution is indeed pitifully SHAMEFUL.

If the question to regulate or not regulate drugs was left to the states, as prescribed by the Constitution, there would no doubt be potpourri of state regulations, but that is what was intended. What's more, the wide range of policies would facilitate a better understanding of the benefits and the harms of various compounds. If you don't experiment, you can't learn.

Additionally, the various models would surely lead to a better understanding of how to treat individuals with dependency issues. If my instincts are correct, we would learn that putting drug users in cages causes a great deal of harm to our society.

A one-size-fits-all approach is just plain stupid. And as you said, it is a disgusting insult to human decency.

[jwirr]

19. Anyone know how far up this order came from? I am tempted to turn

the pic he just sent me in a fundraiser to the wall.

[fascisthunter]

20. "We are Anti-Marijuana, bum a dum, dum, dum, dum dum!"

[Cali_Democrat]

24. Aren't the more pressing issues that the government should be concerned about

Good grief!