Obama & Holder: All Medical Pot cooperatives must close down, even if they are obeying state law

[Dr Fate]

http://safeaccessnow.org/blog/

This is A LOT different than what other DUers are telling me. I thought they were only going after the ones who were illegal under state law?

Who has it right?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RKP5637]

3. Yep, change you can believe in. I'm just disgusted with all of it anymore. n/t

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

5. But other DUers keep saying that they will only go after the ones that are illegal under state law.

Nt

[cbayer]

2. The article he links to does not support what he is saying here:

"The initiative, spearheaded by the four U.S. attorneys in the state, will focus on dispensaries selected by the prosecutors, said a person familiar with the operation. He declined to say what criteria would be used to target dispensaries and asked not to be identified because the prosecutors are scheduled to make the official announcement at a news conference Friday morning in Sacramento."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pot-crackdown-20111007,0,313880.story

[Dr Fate]

4. So who has it right?

if anything, the LA Times article is more vauge.Duncan is saying the quotes about all of them being targets came from a press conference.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. The article at the OP link is about the Sacramento presser

which was last Friday. In Sacramento. From the article at the link in the OP-"The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a major new crackdown on medical cannabis patients, providers, growers, and property owners on Friday. US Attorneys told reporters at a press conference in Sacramento that every medical cannabis patients’ cooperative and collective in California is illegal and must close within forty five days – even if they are obeying state law."
What exactly is the confusion you are claiming to have here?

[Dr Fate]

7. "Must close within 45 days, even if they are obeying state law."

Unless the press conference is being misquoted, then nothing to be confused about.

They may very well target ALL of them, even the ones operating legally under state law.

[cbayer]

12. My confusion is this. If the the DOJ actually made this statement,

why can't I find it anywhere else except by this one blogger?

Honestly, I can't find another instance of it and am unsure that it was said at all. It is radically different than what the DOJ has officially said.

:shrug:

[Dr Fate]

14. Not radically different at all, really, but I agree that the presser could have been misquoted.

I can't find anyone else who is quoting the same conference, or otherwise correcting the info either.

[cbayer]

17. Lots of articles about the press conference, including the LATimes,

Washington Post. None of them say this or anything remotely like this.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/07/local/la-me-obama-medical-marijuana-20111008

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/federal-prosecutors-launch-coordinated-crackdown-on-calif-medical-pot-dispensaries/2011/10/08/gIQAPGluUL_story.html

What they do say is that they are targeting those that currently violate the state laws. Their main concerns seem to be the violation of the not for profit provisions of the law and location issues.

I think this blogger has distorted and misquoted what was said. It's inflammatory and inaccurate.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. Neither article you posted contradicts the OP, sorry

Both articles quote Federal authorities who are saying that all dispensaries are in violation, claiming they are not protected by State law. From your own links:
"That is not what the California voters intended or authorized, and it is illegal under federal law," said Andre Birotte Jr., the Los Angeles-based U.S. attorney for the Central District. "It does not allow this brick-and-mortar, Costco-Wal-Mart-type model that we see across California."
And ""We have yet to find a single instance in which a marijuana store was able to prove that it was a not-for-profit organization."
So no bricks and mortar stores, says this man, speaking for millions of unasked voters who did not elect him to wash the car.
So the hair you are splitting, I sure do not see it, your links do not support it, and none of your links contradict what is in the OP.

[Dr Fate]

30. Check this out- seems to back up the link in the OP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2091617&mesg_id=2092491

[cbayer]

36. A strong statement to be sure, but it does not come close to saying

that all dispensaries are in violation of the law and must close down in 45 days.

Anyway, much as I don't like it, the Feds are stepping in because California did not enforce it's own laws. It's primarily a for-profit, recreational use industry and everyone knows it.. It's the elephant in the room and has hurt both the cause of eventual legalization for recreational use and the MMJ movement, imo.

We had the opportunity to do this correctly and we blew it.

[Dr Fate]

42. Do it " correctly" as in the way Obama and the FEDS want it done?

We don't need Obama to come to SF to show us how to do it "correctly"

Setting up bricks and mortar stores to provide safe access sets back the legalization cause? In what way, exactly? In that it somehow forces the Feds to crack down? Circular argument if that is what you are saying,

Seems like shutting them down and forcing pot back into the hands of teen- age street dealers is what would set us back.

What are Obama's GOALS and why would a liberal or progressive support these goals?

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Show us what you find that contradicts this reporting then.

Are others covering it? What are they saying? Because I've read lots of articles that say the same thing. The LA Times piece you linked to starts with this: "Federal prosecutors are threatening to shut down medical marijuana dispensaries throughout California, sending letters that warn landlords to stop sales of the drug within 45 days or face the possibility that their property will be seized and they will be charged with a crime."
This is not so wildly different from the other report. In fact, it supports the other report, which builds on these facts by presenting that which was said at the press conference which took place after the Times article went to press.
So where are the contradictory reports you are reading?

[cbayer]

18. I have posted two links - LA Times and WaPo. Why don't you show

me one - any one - that says what this blogger is saying:

"All Medical Pot cooperatives must close down, even if they are obeying state law"

[Dr Fate]

31. This seems in line with what the DOJ is quoted as saying...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2091617&mesg_id=2092491

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

43. Those links do not contradict the OP - just more tough talk from the FEDS.

Nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. oh dear

is this the new millennium version of state's rights?

[court jester]

9. They are protecting their patent. That's right, while saying there's no MMJ, they hold a patent.

and because they have a patent we know THEY know Medical Marijuana works.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507

Competition isn't always a good thing, just ask Karen Ignagni.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

10. Well that's it then! No one will ever smoke pot again and the narco trafficers

will be out of business! WTF?

[Dr Fate]

13. Except everyone will have to buy from dealers on street corners instead of from safe, taxed clinics.

sounds clear eyed and centrist to me.

[Dr Fate]

11. Can some of the DUers telling me that the DOJ will not target "legal MMJ" explain this?

maybe the press conference was misquoted?

Anyone with the scoop?

Lots of DUers saying that he is only going after " the pot heads" as opposed to legit co ops following state law.

Can we clear this up?

[mike_c]

21. I live in Humboldt County CA so I'm paying VERY close attention....

Here's the scoop as we know it today. Last week federal prosecutors began sending threatening letters to legally operating dispensaries and their landlords in California giving them 45 days to close. On Friday they gave a press conference. They said that ALL dispensaries in California will be closed. This is apparently a new mission for Obama's DOJ.

Now for the qualifying parts. First, they SAY they won't target individual pro 215 patients or "legitimate" care providers (growers/suppliers), only brick and mortar dispensaries. Of course, since a significant number of Californians buy their marijuana from dispensaries, this will have a massive effect on supplies for those folks, not only forcing many of them back onto the black market but dramatically reinforcing black market prices, which have fallen precipitously since the advent of wide spread dispensaries.

One of the issues that's still unclear is whether they will permit any variance in the operation of dispensaries. California law already requires that dispensaries be non-profit operations, but the feds claimed that they're shutting them down because they're making too much money (or at least that was one of the justifications provided). Other complaints included the sale of THC and cannabinoid laced foodstuffs for those who prefer oral ingestion, especially cannabis candies, cookies, etc. The federal line is that these products are marketed to children-- something I have NEVER seen-- apparently solely because they're sugary. Everyone knows that adults don't eat sweets, right?

edit: Here is the article describing the news conference from a recent Humboldt County Times-Standard: Feds promise to stamp out pot dispensaries; U.S. Attorneys won't target ill patients, but will aggressively pursue 'marijuana stores': http://www.times-standard.com/ci_19070329?IADID

[RainDog]

25. as we've discussed on the other thread - it is legal to use cannabis but not sell it

therefore, any entity that sells cannabis is operating illegally.

those who want to protect the idea of cannabis as something that's not another corporately-controlled and produced substance could take some solace from this - the Attn Gen's are going after the large-scale producers.

We'll see what happens after that.

The reality, again, is that California needs to legalize and then regulate this market to provide clear guidelines. They can legalize and still declare that it is illegal to for any one group to have more than x amt. of acreage devoted to cannabis production - not that they would want to, but that's one option.

The smaller-scale Humboldt growers have even had discussion about creating co-opts to compete with the large-scale Oakland growers, btw.

My initial reaction to this was one of disgust. However, I'm willing to see how this plays out.

The reality is that Obama has used the power of the federal govt to go after for-profit cannabis. No one is going after doctors who prescribe it as far as I can tell, or people who use it.

[Dr Fate]

35. So Obama is criminalizing safe access by shutting down the clinics. How Liberal of him.

he is not going after doctors or people who use it - he is just second guessing doctors and forcing people who do use to buy from gangs on street corners.

It's all just a big, happy, progressive misunderstanding!

[RainDog]

41. no. this has nothing to do with Obama. This has to do with CA state law.

the only way it has something to do with Obama is that he could and should call for rescheduling hearings to decriminalize cannabis.

This is about upholding the CA state law. I posted the law and you can read it. He's not second-guessing doctors - anyone who has a medical marijuana card can still obtain it through a grower/distributor that operates as a NON PROFIT.

They are going after the sale of cannabis because that remains illegal under state law. That's the law that was put into effect.

If people want to make it legal to sell, they have to vote to legalize in 2012.

That's the reality in this moment.

The reality is not that Obama is forcing people to go without medication to deal with their illnesses - at least not in CA. By refusing to look at rescheduling, however, he is complicit in turning cancer patients, ppl with MS or CP, people with rheumatoid arthritis, etc. into criminals if they want to use cannabis as medicine in states without mmj laws. Only about 1/3 of the states have such laws now.

I think it's important to stick to reality. This is the reality. Don't overstate your case.

[Dr Fate]

49. The IRS, ATF and Federal Police agencies are cracking down, all under Obama's executive branch.

If Obama wants to call off the dogs or otherwise voice his disapproval, that would be welcome.

WHY do the FEDS need to even address this AT ALL?

What is the point? WHY is this a good idea?

Why not just let the state and local communities handle this?

What is the GOAL of Obama doing this, and why should liberals or progressives support his efforts?

[RainDog]

52. you know, I don't know why they need to address this

maybe Obama wants to get the conservative vote in places like San Jose and this show of muscle allows him to do so.

maybe the growers lobby in CA wants this because the prices for their product have been falling since the opening of dispensaries and this action pushes up prices and provides a political payback while also making the feds look like they're all about law and order.

I don't support these actions - but, again, the actions are taking place within a framework of law for the state of CA.

maybe this action will get people so pissed off they'll canvas door-to-door to advocate for legalization by pointing out that crime is down in areas with dispensaries - and, thereby up the ante in the state v federal fight on this issue (a hoped-for unintended, not intended consequence.)

the L.A. Times article notes that one of the places targeted was selling out of state. This then becomes a federal issue, whether anyone likes that or not. Interstate commerce.

[Dr Fate]

55. LOL! Obama thinks this will make Law and Order Republicans vote for him????

I've heard it all.

All this will do is make him look like a flip flopper and alienate liberals ( sorry, no one else is going to split hairs in his favor to justify this). It won't convert a single, solitary republican into a DEM voter.

Growers lobby wants this? Since the FEDS will be busting growers too, that makes no sense.

Progressives should support this to help Obama get elected- so he can bust them even more? Sure, why not.

[RainDog]

59. no. that's not what I said. I'm not a mind reader, either. I said I don't know

however, religious democrats are often considered social conservatives - conservative isn't just a description of republicans.

so, no. you haven't heard it all. you've simply misunderstood. I thought you were aware of the sort of "political compass" breakdown of voters.. this is a standard description to sort of people on various issues. if you think all democrats are liberal, you're simply misinformed - or maybe, in your haste to try to discount anything I've said, you took the route that would allow you to dismiss this truth rather than consider it. I don't know.

and, frankly, neither do you. but, yeah, growers don't give a fuck if cannabis is legal if it drives down the price. if you don't believe that, you can read posts here that talk about growers complaining about Prop. 19 when it was on the ballot - so, it may not make sense to you, but to the capitalists in Humboldt who grow - it matters to some of them. you can read posts from anti prop 19ers who were also growers on blogs and at newspapers, too, as well as cannabis-related sites. I've spent some time trying to learn about the different factions.

However, since the reality is that what is happening is forcing compliance with the law, until liberals define themselves as the "no law" party - this action, however much you or I may not like it, is part of how our nation works.

this issue is going to come down to a state v. fed fight, unless someone is smart enough to not waste all the time and money on this and simply decriminalize via rescheduling - a federal-level action - which is what I think should happen.

but their are different interests in conflict here and prohibition will not be overturned without some more fights about it, or so it seems.

[GeorgeGist]

65. Pot is free if you have a prescription?

[TransitJohn]

64. LOL

:rofl:
:hi:

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cbayer]

19. Please provide anything other than this blogger's *quote* that says this.

Anything.

[mike_c]

23. see #21

I presume you're the moderator who wants to believe it's otherwise so badly that you deleted my post? Well, it's true. Hell, I'll link it here-- you don't even have to click on #21: http://www.times-standard.com/ci_19070329?IADID

[Bluenorthwest]

29. Hold on tight to the dream

nt

[cbayer]

34. Not sure what the problem is here, but let me make my position clear to you.

I am a very strong proponent of MMJ.

I also support eventual legalization of MJ for recreational use.

Although the law in California looked like it would take us in that direction, it has been grossly abused by profiteers who have hurt the cause much more than they have helped it.

Just take a walk down Venice Beach sometime, or West Hollywood or just about any area of LA. Most of these places are selling for recreational use and for profit. Since that is neither the intent nor the substance of the law, we have a problem. What is happening here does not make it more likely that we will eventually achieve legalization for recreational use. The DOJ's response is a reflection of California not enforcing it's own laws.

In my experience, for every person in this state that is receiving MMJ legitimately under the current law, there are 100 that are getting it solely for recreational purposes.

This has hurt not only the goal of eventual legalization, but has hurt the whole MMJ movement, imo.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. And you are entitled to that opinion. You are not entitled to making

the facts unclear, nor to making up your own, nor to calling the actual facts 'the words of one blogger' over and over just because of your opinion. It is dishonorable. Advocate your opinion, which is the same as what the DOJ is saying.
I think you are very wrong in your opinion, but the facts are not matters for debate. That is the thing here. This late in the thread, you speak your actual opinion about the actual issue, after all that wailing that it is not even true. That speaks volumes, in my opinion. Volumes.

[Dr Fate]

40. So people should go back to buying from gangs on the street corners...

...as opposed to going to stores who pay taxes, provide legit jobs with benefits, etc.

Who was it who decided that all of these folks with medical cards are not using pot to help with sleep, stress, etc just like they would use pills? That is part of the intent/ substance of the law, and that is why doctors prescribe it.

Since when do the FEDS get to interpret the intent of State law? Since when do the FEDS get to second guess every doctor's script and every patients reasons for getting a card?

If the FEDS would stay out of it, I'm fairly sure CA could keep on operating the way it has been and it would ot be a problem at all.

We have a problem in CA? Really? What is the problem? I live in SF and it is working great. Who exactly is being hurt by these bricks & mortar stores, are they producing more residual crime than street corner sales on gang turf, for instance?

[MindPilot]

58. You don't know what you are talking about.

You don't just walk into a dispensary and buy it. You have to have a recommendation from an MD. The people at the dispensary call the office of the MD to make sure the recommendation is legitimate. You can't even physically enter the area where the stuff is sold until your ID and recommendation are validated and cross-checked.

[cbayer]

61. Venice Beach - hawkers on the walkway with signs that say

Medical Kush Doctor is In!!

The Green Doctor - Medical Marijuana Evaluation = only $40 today!


Walk=ins Welcome! The Doctor is In!

I don't know where you live, but pretty much everyone I know has a card. And none, but a couple, have medical problems.

You do the math.

[MindPilot]

62. No math necessary.

Do you make the same judgment about people who have disabled parking placards? Do you tell people wearing glasses they don't really need them?

Yeah, I have a card and so does pretty much everyone I know. So the hell what? We all went through the process--the LEGAL process--and who are you to second-guess?

[cbayer]

63. The distinction here is between recreational use and medicinal use.

I support legalization for recreational use. Always have. My question is, are we moving in that direction?

No one gets disabled parking placards or glasses for recreational purposes. The analogies don't hold up, imo.

We need to change the laws.

The law right now permits the cultivation, sale and possession of medical MJ. But the emperor has no clothes. Everyone here knows that most of the cultivation, sale and possession is for recreational purposes.

We like it, we benefit from it, but the question is - has our scofflaw attitude moved us closer to the goal or not?

FWIW, the legislature passed, and Jerry Brown vetoed today, a law that would permit the growing of hemp for industrial purposes. This seems like a clear indication that the fed intervention here has impeded the cause, not advanced it.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. deleted

double post. annoying.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. Just so you know who the 'blogger' is

He's the CA Director of Americans For Safe Access which is he largest national member-based organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens promoting safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research.
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=4237

The blog is part of the organization's website. They are cited in the links you provided as well.

[msongs]

20. Continuing war crimes like Bush = good, medical pot = bad. whatta guy nt

[lib2DaBone]

24. Meanwhile.. Holder is selling guns Fast and Furious to Gangsters in Mexico...

Any hopes of Obama's re-election are dashed with Holder in place.

[Upton]

26. That reminds me..

Read some speculation this crackdown on medical marijuana may be to deflect attention away from Fast and Furious..

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2011/10/07/feds-targeting-ca-pot-clubs-to-deflect-heat-on-fast-furious-scandal/

[RKP5637]

28. That, sounds very very plausible! n/t

[Rex]

32. So corporations can start making money off of it and not small

business owners. I know Obama loves Big Biz...but this is semi-stupid.

[RainDog]

39. actually, that's the opposite of what the stated intent is in this crackdown

or rather, nothing to do with it since it is illegal to sell cannabis, still.

It is legal to provide cannabis to medical patients as a non-profit - but those non-profits must grow their own for specific patients.

this is down scaling cannabis distribution, iow.

I don't trust the feds to do much of anything right in regard to cannabis b/c their stated policies are not based upon science or fact.

But the fact in this case is that the dispensaries that sell cannabis are in violation of the CA law. The CA law is a non-profit one. So, every dispensary that is making a profit from the sale of cannabis is violating the law.

Whenever it is time to make changes in dumb laws and policies, there are wildly disruptive times - the dispensaries have challenged the state to stop them from selling for profit simply by doing so. This was a push against the law by them that is now seeing a push back from the Attn Gens in CA.

Again, anyone who wants to just bring this all out into the open should vote to legalize in CA and CO in 2012. I would rather see states collecting taxes on the sale of cannabis that is regulated in a way that makes this product a "good neighbor" to those with small children (who worry about them incessantly, nothing you can do about that) and those who are opposed to the legality but cannot stop it. If the state provides guidelines under legalization (which they would have to do anyway) they can have the same sort of restrictions that bars or liquor stores have on them. I think most people can compromise in that way.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

37. Federal Law has always trumped state law.

Secondly, it is their job to enforce the law until it is changed by congress. Sorry you don't like it, but that is the truth.

[Dr Fate]

44. So Obama is going to bust all pot co ops, whether they are legal under state law or not.

Just to be clear.

[RainDog]

48. no he's not. if they are operating within the law, as a nonprofit, they are safe

just to be clear

[Dr Fate]

50. So unless we can find someone who gives it away, we have to buy from teenage gangs on the corner.

sounds liberal.

What are Obama's goals in this crack down, and why would a liberal or progressive support those goals?

Check out Obama doing more liberal things in OR...

http://www.katu.com/news/local/130830348.html

[RainDog]

53. if someone operates a co-op, they can let their services be known

look, I didn't write the fucking law. I'm just pointing out that dispensaries are in violation of it.

If you want the law to change, vote to change it.

[Dr Fate]

54. What are Obama's GOALS in busting co ops and why are these goals worth defending?

????

[RainDog]

60. compliance with the law is the goal.

as I've stated repeatedly.

and, now, I'm sort of done stating it because how many times can you say the same thing and have someone ask you sort of the same question.

take care.

[garybeck]

45. HOPE.... Hope..... hope.... h o p e...... h.....?

n/t

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Believe It]

56. K & R

[StarsInHerHair]

57. does any1 else sign in to avoid seeing ?

I just had it with the O propagandist. I feel really bad for people who need mmj, I think it's just nightmarish what Pres. Obama is choosing to do & it's highly annoying what some repeat endlessly especially when they are lies