HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Will Obama go after Color...

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:10 PM

 

Will Obama go after Colorado's Cannabis industry soon?

Me thinks he is going to go hard within the month after CO's MMJ industry.

79 replies, 4449 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 79 replies Author Time Post
Reply Will Obama go after Colorado's Cannabis industry soon? (Original post)
Bennyboy Nov 2012 OP
mzmolly Nov 2012 #1
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #33
Panasonic Nov 2012 #2
EOTE Nov 2012 #8
Bennyboy Nov 2012 #13
appal_jack Nov 2012 #62
EOTE Nov 2012 #64
appal_jack Nov 2012 #65
still_one Nov 2012 #3
dem4ward Nov 2012 #4
patrice Nov 2012 #11
MADem Nov 2012 #5
villager Nov 2012 #9
leftstreet Nov 2012 #32
MADem Nov 2012 #41
Anthony McCarthy Nov 2012 #6
Canuckistanian Nov 2012 #15
liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #16
MADem Nov 2012 #19
Anthony McCarthy Nov 2012 #23
MADem Nov 2012 #29
msongs Nov 2012 #25
MADem Nov 2012 #28
Canuckistanian Nov 2012 #42
MADem Nov 2012 #44
Canuckistanian Nov 2012 #56
MADem Nov 2012 #58
patrice Nov 2012 #7
Logical Nov 2012 #52
patrice Nov 2012 #53
patrice Nov 2012 #54
tridim Nov 2012 #10
DisgustipatedinCA Nov 2012 #12
liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #14
DisgustipatedinCA Nov 2012 #22
RainDog Nov 2012 #48
librechik Nov 2012 #66
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #35
Michigan Alum Nov 2012 #31
musiclawyer Nov 2012 #68
AndyTiedye Nov 2012 #17
Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #18
MADem Nov 2012 #20
Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #24
MADem Nov 2012 #30
liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #34
Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #37
liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #38
Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #39
Bluenorthwest Nov 2012 #75
Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #77
Floyd_Gondolli Nov 2012 #74
Cal Carpenter Nov 2012 #59
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #21
MADem Nov 2012 #40
RainDog Nov 2012 #49
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #26
EOTE Nov 2012 #27
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #43
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #46
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #55
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #57
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #72
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #78
zappaman Nov 2012 #79
EOTE Nov 2012 #60
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #61
EOTE Nov 2012 #63
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #70
EOTE Nov 2012 #73
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #67
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #71
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #76
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #36
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #45
RainDog Nov 2012 #47
blazeKing Nov 2012 #50
RainDog Nov 2012 #51
jwirr Nov 2012 #69

Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:11 PM

1. In what way?

Taxation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mzmolly (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:01 PM

33. Read on California

Hopping DC district court reschedules it already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:12 PM

2. If he does - I've got something for him: Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights.

 

Feds have a loser of a case, and we're armed with facts backed by science, and no more bullshit.

There is a case before the DC Court that may force DEA to remove cannabis from scheduling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:16 PM

8. That didn't seem to work with regard to medical marijuana states.

I would have thought the 10th amendment would have applied then, but Obama's DoJ went after MMJ mercilessly. I hope that doesn't happen any more, but I'm not going to count on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:20 PM

13. BINGO!

 

In CA he sut it down almost totally and the clubs that are left are only there out of stubborness.

I know this, CA dispensary owners and members are all wondering why he did nothing about it before (of course he would have lost CO had he) but we are now waiting to see if Federal Law is different in CO than CA... and are willing to use the courts to find out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:11 PM

62. Ignoring a right /= repealing it.

Ignoring a right is not the same as repealing it. It is very unfortunate that the Obama administration has chosen to ignore the Constitution. But the 10th Amendment is still there. It is our right, if only we insist upon it.

-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #62)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:16 PM

64. It seems to me that the 10th amendment is ignored fairly frequently.

Especially considering we have court cases where the defendants are forbidden from mentioning the fact that they didn't break state law at all.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Medical-pot-provider-convicted-of-drug-trafficking-3898873.php#ixzz2AH0aZo1h

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #64)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:45 PM

65. Too true.

In my estimation, the entire elegant machinery of the Bill of Rights, bequeathed to us by our forefathers in good-running condition, is now rusty and creaky in the even the most-used gears. The cogs of the 10th Amendment are almost entirely seized and stripped of their teeth. But the Founders put that gear in there; it's up to us to get out the oil and wrenches and make the necessary repairs...

-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:12 PM

3. I doubt it. More important issues. In fact he may support it at the federal level if congress

Presents it to him, though I doubt they will

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:12 PM

4. naw, watch how much money the state gets from it!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dem4ward (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:17 PM

11. b.i.n.g.o. & YOUNG business leaders don't have a problem with that. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:13 PM

5. He doesn't have to run for reelection. No worries about being soft on drugs anymore. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:16 PM

9. We hope. Time will shortly tell if he will correct one of the great failings of his first term.

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:01 PM

32. DLC brainfreeze: hard on drugs when voters are soft

go figure

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #32)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:51 PM

41. The DLC has been defunct for a couple of years now.

Really--they closed up shop a while back. All of their "stuff" is archived at Clinton's Presidential Library.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:15 PM

6. I got the feeling it was more Holder who was behind that effort.

 

Over the past four years I've gradually grown to detest Eric Holder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Anthony McCarthy (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:25 PM

15. Exactly. Holder is driving this, not Obama

Holder made his name prosecuting drug traffickers, including marijuana

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Canuckistanian (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:27 PM

16. Sounds like Holder needs to go

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:36 PM

19. You can't fire him for carrying out his job of enforcing the nation's laws.

A guy named Nixon tried to do that--doesn't anyone remember the "Impeach the Cox Sacker" bumper stickers?

The thing to do is CHANGE THE DAMN LAWS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:44 PM

23. Holder isn't actively investigating criminal activity in the Obama administration,

 

Unless Barack Obama is smoking pot, the situations are entirely different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Anthony McCarthy (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:57 PM

29. You can't fire the head of the justice department for doing his job.

It doesn't matter "what" he is investigating or prosecuting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:51 PM

25. holder can be fired without reason or cause nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #25)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:55 PM

28. Yeah? I'm betting you won't see that happen. Ever. Actions have consequences. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:26 PM

42. Holder does have leeway in what direction the DOJ takes

And he's cracking down on MMJ for some reason. Even Ashcroft and Gonzales under Bush weren't going after MMJ with such zeal.

And speaking of him not having a choice - why isn't the DOJ prosecuting all the mortgage fraud and other Wall St. crimes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Canuckistanian (Reply #42)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:33 PM

44. I don't disagree with a single thing you're saying.

I wish he'd find something else to do, but trying to force him out would probably be more problematic, from the "news cycle" aspect alone -- better he decided under his own steam to find other opportunities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #44)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:25 AM

56. The AG serves at the pleasure of the president. He's an apointee

And it's perfectly acceptable to pick a new AG at the start of a new term.

Bush chose Gonzales over Ashcroft, without needing a reason. As have other Presidents.

This is not a "power struggle". If Obama doesn't like what Holder is doing, he can be replaced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Canuckistanian (Reply #56)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:24 AM

58. If there is even a "whiff" of political reasoning behind a switch,

then it is baggage for the President. It's not what one "can" do, it's all down to how it is perceived.

Ashcroft, if you remember, had some substantial health issues. He had a gallbladder operation that went squirrelly on him due to pancreatitis, and he was in hospital for a week and a half (most people go home way earlier). Some shit went on during that hospitalization that may have tweaked Ashcroft's moral compass to the point where he'd had enough (remember that late night visit?).

Most importantly, Bush did not ask for his resignation--Ashcroft, himself, tendered it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:16 PM

7. The President doesn't DO the DOJ's job. He is the Executive branch. They are the Judicial.

Republicans are the ones who violate the separation of powers.

DOJ will do what DOJ does and, if NORML is worth its salt, it will do what issue advocacy is supposed to do on their own legal issues and the whole question will evolve toward some state of legal equilibrium.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 08:22 PM

52. LOL, and no president has any infuence on it. Wink Wink!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #52)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 08:37 PM

53. Does your boss have influence over what you do? & Does your boss actually DO what you do?

Are there no details of how your job is done that you control independently of your employer's general guidance about that work? Or does your boss prescribe every last one of the high degree of detail that goes into your work, each determination of which has significant effect upon the outcome?

If you can't see how these questions apply to legal issues, you're in over your head on this topic.

Legal "call and response" is the actual process, a dialectic, by means of which legal issues evolve in this country. A side effect of which is the fact that those processes evoke the rise of the best legal minds, ON BOTH/all SIDES of a question, to engage in the struggle until law that results in as little further expenditure of time and resources as possible is produced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #52)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 08:40 PM

54. Perhaps you're just not used to priority being placed upon a process rather than upon a specific

outcome or predetermined answer to a question.

Occupy much? Heard of something referred to as "horizontal empowerment"?

The answer will be the one that evolves out of the actual context, i.e. persons, skills, aptitudes, abilities, relationships . . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:16 PM

10. No.

People aren't understanding how big this is. It's a freaking nuclear bomb dropped on the WOD.. Two of them actually.

Cannabis will likely be rescheduled next year at which point it will become mostly decriminalized federally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:18 PM

12. What makes you say rescheduling is likely next year?

I do hope you're right, but I haven't heard anything in support of that angle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:21 PM

14. isn't there a a case being heard in the federal court to reschedule?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #14)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:38 PM

22. I don't know. Here's hoping. n/t

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:47 PM

66. yes, I believe there is. Legalization moving forward on several fronts

But I like the citizen mandates we got in CO and WA state!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:04 PM

35. Federal court before the DC district

They are asking to reschedule. First case in ten years to go there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:58 PM

31. Most experts think it will be legalized eventually. It's less addictive/harmful than alcohol.

It's taking up space in prisons to house the dealers/users.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #10)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:21 PM

68. This

The WOD got an ice pick in the brain on Tuesday. POTUS knows it. The states are prepared for any fight Will POTUS die on a hill where he will be buried by an avalanche of evidence and data proving the medical and economic efficacy of weed and hemp? I think not .....
Especially when the states can Prove alcohol cigarettes and legal drugs are far more deadly than cannabis

In 5 years weed will be legal and taxed throughout the west

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:30 PM

17. Big Pharm and the Prison Industry Will Demand It

That seems to trump anything the rest of us do or say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:34 PM

18. Gary Johnson/Jill Stein 2016!!!!!





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:37 PM

20. Oh....yuck. Sure recipe for handing the WH to the GOP. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #20)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:44 PM

24. Perhaps I should've included this in my post.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #24)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:58 PM

30. Phew!



I am much relieved!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:03 PM

34. Thank you sir may I have another

Go ahead hit the wife in the eye. Dems act like abusive husbands to libs. Eventually abused wives leave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:10 PM

37. How 'bout this? I could care less. Not all "Libs" are stoners. Oh, btw, how much support...

did Roseanne Barr, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson & Rocky Anderson receive collectively? I'll be interested to see how much of the electorate gave a shit about you being able to !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:12 PM

38. yes, you're such a compassionate dem I can tell

my husband is legally blind, has glaucoma, and uses medical marijuana.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #38)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:17 PM

39. Yeah, well, we all know someone who can benefit from "medical" MJ. My problem is that stoners....

are scapegoating sick people to get their smoke on. If you live in a state where medical MJ is legal, then don't abuse that privelege, is my advice. And "compassion" has very little to do with my reasoning, especially if you operate within the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #39)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:11 PM

75. What an atavistic and right wing attitude, based on utter and total ignorance and

assumption in lieu of fact. What an awful, cold statement. This is what you say to a woman whose husband's eyesight is his due to this medicine? Have you no upbringing at all? No filters of any sort?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #75)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:00 PM

77. What an insufferably smug "attitude" to assume that one is rightwing if they disagree with you.

Fuck pot! Make it legal! I could give a shit, but stoners need to stop scapegoating sick people for a "legal" high. I don't see President Obama trying to take actual sick people's MJ away. And no matter how you feel about it, there are still laws on the books. Whatever happened to lobbying Congress to overturn bad law? Or is that too much work? The default position for you guys has, and always will be, BLAME OBAMA FIRST!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #38)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:05 PM

74. I agree

 

What an asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #37)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:26 AM

59. It's not about being "stoners"

It's about other things though, like the medical realities that some have mentioned, and then the whole War On Drugs with for-profit prisons banking off non-violent pot users/dealers, particularly those with dark skin or empty bank accounts.

It's about civil rights and a civil society that doesn't create whole industries out of punishing people for the use or distribution of a nearly benign substance that grows naturally in the dirt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:38 PM

21. The tired-ass dam that is marijuana prohibition is cracking.

They cant stem the tide forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #21)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:41 PM

40. Yes, a modern day Volstead Act.

We're living in a 21st Century Boardwalk Empire world...!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #40)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 07:41 PM

49. LOL

love it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:51 PM

26. I don't think Obama's going to do a damn thing about it.

To what end?

It's a non starter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #26)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:55 PM

27. Then why wouldn't he have taken his hands off MMJ?

You'd think that he'd have even more reason not to go after people who are just trying to get treatment or provide treatment for their illnesses. If Obama went after MMJ, I don't see why he wouldn't go after recreational marijuana.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #27)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:33 PM

43. The DOJ went after clinics

that were in violation of California law. Many of the pot clinics here were merely profit-making enterprises and that's a violation. If they didn't follow the guidelines set forth in the law, they were shut down—as they should be.

The clinics in L.A. were attacked by the Los Angeles City Council, not the DOJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #43)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 07:30 PM

46. Not quite, I am a reporter in San Diego

the Clinic in El Cajon was shut down in spite of being a model place, certified by the Sheriffs Dept... and a few other things.

That was not the only one.

Please, realize the DOJ has gone hard after these places. I have been covering this story for over a year and Duffy has not been shy about why she has ordered the raids and prosecutions starting in 2008.

One of those cases, a place in Clairemont Mesa, the two people were arrested. Person number one was tried in Federal Court, and already has served time. The second was tried in state court, and the state 4th Circuit just threw the conviction off oh two weeks ago, over the fact that the lawyer was not allowed to present evidence. It has also clarified state law.

Here

“By rejecting the Attorney General’s argument that patients who utilize dispensaries must collaborate…to cultivate the marijuana they purchase, the court is establishing a clear standard for dispensaries across the state.” –Joe Elford, Chief Counsel, Americans for Safe Access

By Nadin Abbott

Octo
Lance Rogers. Terrie Best and Jovan Jackson
ber 26, 2012 (San Diego)—On Wednesday, the Fourth District Court of Appeal for California issued a unanimous ruling overturning the conviction of Jovan Jackson, the operator of Answerdam, a medical marijuana dispensary in Kearny Mesa.

The decision is being hailed by medical marijuana advocates as a landmark decision that could have far-reaching impacts for medical marijuana patients and dispensaries.

Following a 2007 raid on his dispensary, Jackson was tried for marijuana possession and sale in 2009 but was acquitted by a jury. San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis tried him again on the same charges following a second raid in 2009. This time, Jackson was denied a defense under the state's Medical Marijuana Program Act and he was convicted. Superior Court Judge Howard Shore referred to medical marijuana as “dope” and called California’s medical marijuana laws “a scam.”


http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/11521

MOTHER EARTH DISPENSARY FILES EMERGENCY STAY; PATIENTS TELL THEIR STORIES


"JD," Bob Reidel, Lance Rogers, and View Linville

Story and photos by Nadin Abbott

Update: The stay of eviction has been denied by the 4th circuit court. Mother Earth has filed for bankruptcy, but will remain open pending bankruptcy hearings, attorney Lance Rogers advised ECM today.

July 25, 2012 (San Diego)—A legal team for Mother Earth Alternative Healing Cooperative in El Cajon filed an emergency writ July 23 in San Diego County’s Superior Court seeking a stay of eviction from the facility near Gillespie Field.
The medical marijuana clinic is the only such facility operating legally under state and local laws in San Diego County. But now the federal government, which has never legalized medical marijuana, seeks to deny California patients all access to medical marijuana locally—and force a court battle over state rights.


http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/10522



For the record, I wish it was as simple as you think it is. But it is far from that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #46)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:19 AM

55. But in San Diego we're talking about Laura Duffy, not Obama

and U.S. Attorney's are given discretion about who they want to go after. It isn't up to the President to make those decisions and Duffy obviously has an ax to grind over medical pot.

The majority of closings/arrests in most counties are due to violations by the clinics. Holder made it clear at the beginning of his term that those were the clinics they would target.

To characterize this as Obama's war on medical pot is as disingenuous as any Republican attack against him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #55)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 10:48 AM

57. And Laura Duffy works for the DOJ

And you said the Feds had nothing tho do with this. They do, even in LA. The narcotics task force is made of both local and federal cops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #57)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:46 PM

72. Read my freaking post

I said you can't blame OBAMA for this. The DOJ, the last time I looked, had the discretion to prosecute. And U.S. Attorneys are traditionally given leeway to go after who they feel should be prosecuted.

There are three U.S. Attorneys in California who are gungho about closing down the pot shops.

You say you're a freaking reporter and you have no idea who this shit works?

Give me a break.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #72)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:01 PM

78. No my dear, the one who has no clue is you

Yes, the DOJ has discretion, but the DOJ also takes some guidance from the POTUS. I am sorry this is hard for you to comprehend.

For the record, we are all hoping ASA has their case heard in the DC court of appeals and medical marihuana is re-scheduled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #46)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 07:04 PM

79. " I am a reporter in San Diego"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #43)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:18 PM

60. Uh, why is the DoJ going after supposed violations of state law when states have their own law

enforment? And I've heard of many, many cases that have come to court that involve NOTHING in terms of violation of state law. In fact, during the cases, defense attorneys were not allowed to say that their clients didn't violate state law because violation of federal law was what they were being charged under. Are you honestly saying that Obama didn't break his campaign promises regarding MMJ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #60)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:56 PM

61. Because the local authorities are asking them to

There are several local law enforcement agencies that are infuriated by the law and ask the feds to step in.

And yes, that's what I'm saying re: Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #61)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:13 PM

63. So you're saying that the feds are ONLY getting involved when asked to by local officials?

Because that is ENTIRELY untrue. I just want to make sure that's what you're saying. That is utter horseshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #63)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:42 PM

70. Did I use the word ONLY?

No, I don't think I did. Read my posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #70)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:59 PM

73. You certainly implied that.

Otherwise, there wasn't very much point to your posts. How do you respond to the Obama administrations many prosecutions of individuals who are only breaking FEDERAL law? FYI, responding once again that he does it because some people are breaking state law is not an acceptable answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #61)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:48 PM

67. I gave a precise example from San Diego

Utter horse shit, or bull crap.

Serious dude...you really need to look at the whole data. DOJ is the Feds.... .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #67)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:43 PM

71. And you completely ignored my response

I mean, really?

Why don't you guys just slap an R on your chest and get it over with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #71)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:57 PM

76. Now that was a nice slam

have a good life... apparently FACTS are not something you like to deal with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #26)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:04 PM

36. Check California.

To hat end, we asked Duffy...it's federal law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:34 PM

45. I live in California

Read my response above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 07:35 PM

47. I'm waiting to see what the DC Appeals Court does with the ASA request

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1170823

Holder wouldn't do what the DEA wanted before the election - i.e. come out against CO and WA and OR's various votes.

This is an ideal time to start some federal signals of a change - and rescheduling is the best option to undermine federal involvement in this issue for the moment, seems to me.

Democrats tend to come down hard on this issue to prove their law and order cred - but this issue has reached a tipping point and everyone but the feds seems to know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 07:44 PM

50. It's up to Holder now

 

Gov Hickenlooper will talk to Holder about how they are going to handle the transition. Given what Holder has done before, he probably will not allow shops or manufacturing but won't go after people abiding the law, and neither will the state obviously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blazeKing (Reply #50)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 08:00 PM

51. the underground market would keep the price up

but would hamper collection of taxes for the state. Surely the Gov. knows this.

Four state Govs have already requested rescheduling hearings - Colorado, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

Last year, another historic moment came when all members of the Washington State Legislature called for rescheduling hearings.

I can imagine the CO legislature will also appeal to the national legislature to look at the law so that these two states can implement the law the voters have chosen.

If there was a valid reason for the federal law, this would seem difficult - but the majority of Americans are on board for the end of this prohibition. Let the entrepreneurs loose - including hemp production for industrial uses.

The law is so stupid that even non-psychotropic hemp is part of the drug schedule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:24 PM

69. I am hoping that he declares both Colorado and Washington as well as Detroit experimental waivers.

Letting them show what can be done with this new law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread