Calif. pot dispensaries told by feds to shut down

[halik]

I thought overall public opinion was for legalization?

 

[bfdd]

I thought overall public opinion was for legalization?

it is. anyone who says otherwise is either doesn't live here or lives in a bubble. it's quite surprising how many people I know just 5-10 years ago were completely against it and now really don't give a fuck.

 

[Nebbers]

Anyone who isn't for legalization at this point is either brainwashed, has some sort of agenda they won't admit, or just fucking stupid.

Also, isn't it wonderful that according to federal law, Cannabis has less medical usage than cocaine and methamphetamine?

Truly enlightened society we live in.

 

[Nebbers]

Additionally, I'm glad we're using such a large amount of our resources on users and growers of a plant that has never and could never kill anyone.

Meanwhile, drug-trafficking-related Mexican gang violence continues to grow and spill over into our country.

Legalize all drugs and focus on treatment for addicts, not imprisonment. Sending addicts to prison does not contribute to their rehabilitation. Then spend some of the enormous amount of money we currently spend 'fighting' drugs (of which we stop less than 2% of the import of from Mexico) on something worthy of our time and money, like human trafficking, which continues to thrive.

Sorry, went a little off topic, but this shit really pisses me off. It is completely clear what should be done, yet day after day nothing changes.

 

[Patranus]

A few years back, the SCOTUS bent over backwards to say that the Feds could constitutionally enforce federal MJ law in Calif. They ruled under the interstate commerce clause, which was bogus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

In a fashion typical for the current court, they then muddied the waters in 2009-

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/19/nation/na-court-marijuana19

Marijuana laws in general? The dumbest thing since the Volstead act.

You can think FDR and his court packing scheme which threw out hundred years of precedent to pervert the constitution and "progressively" pervert the commerce clause.

You should note that before the "progressive" the constitution had to be amended to impede a states ability to regulate intrastate commerce.

This is a perfect example of what separates constitutional conservatives and "progressives".

 

[bfdd]

You can think FDR and his court packing scheme which threw out hundred years of precedent to pervert the constitution and "progressively" pervert the commerce clause.

You should note that before the "progressive" the constitution had to be amended to impede a states ability to regulate intrastate commerce.

This is a perfect example of what separates constitutional conservatives and "progressives".

Patranus, you are fundamentally against the practices being done by the government here, but are ok with it because it isn't something you like? That's very very very un-American.

 

[pcgeek11]

I really don't give a shit one way or the other, but it is rule of ( federal ) law. They are fully within the right to take this action.

 

[Double Trouble]

There isn't anyone being hurt, and there isn't any need for marijuana prohibition. We need to just cut to the chase and legalise the stuff. Until then, I don't think it's realistic to expect the federal government to ignore its own laws and stay out of it.

Yes, that makes sense. Until we reach the day (assuming we ever do) when the stuff is legal at the federal and state level, it's not reasonable to assume that the federal government will simply ignore obvious and widespread violation of federal laws.

Why now though? What's so important about now? Don't we have some slight issues to deal with, like say, oh, 15 trillion debt, unemployment, wars and so forth?

 

[Double Trouble]

I agree with you there.



But they are legal in California.

No, they are not legal in California. They are legal under California law, but since federal law supersedes California law, they are still illegal in California as well. That's an important distinction people seem to have a hard time with.

 

[Double Trouble]

it is. anyone who says otherwise is either doesn't live here or lives in a bubble. it's quite surprising how many people I know just 5-10 years ago were completely against it and now really don't give a fuck.

I'm not so sure public opinion is for legalization at all, at any state level or at the national level. The public opinion is for legalization of medical use, but I don't think the public is for outright legalization.

I agree with Eagle Keeper in the sense that as long as there was at least a wink wink sense that the distribution was at least somewhat related to medicinal use, the feds were willing to look away. At some point you reach the stage where any pretense of actual medicinal use is out the window, and the federal government can't reasonably be expected to simply ignore the violation of federal laws on large scale. Notice how they went after the big dogs, the ones making millions through large scale distribution. They're not going after the little guys.

 

[Double Trouble]

Patranus, you are fundamentally against the practices being done by the government here, but are ok with it because it isn't something you like? That's very very very un-American.

No, he's just pointing out that the overly broad interpretation has brought us to the point where there are essentially no limits on federal reach, and this is one of the consequences. On the one hand we keep extending the reach of federal government, then we complain when the federal government exerts power given to it.

I prefer less federal government, leave more things to the states, but that's a double edged sword.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

i couldnt care less if pot is legal or not but these pot clubs are a joke. theyre just about dispensing pot to recreational users. its always funny when you walk by one and there will be 300lb security dudes covered with tattoos sitting outside. looks real clinical....

 

[werepossum]

I don't think so. Take a look at the latest national polling on medical MJ:

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=149

65% favor is a whoppingly high percentage. How does Obama gain political favor by cracking down? Honestly, it doesn't make all that much sense to me.

- wolf

I tend to agree with EagleKeeper that the crackdown is not a reversal of Obama's promise to not oppose medical marijuana as it is a recognition of the widespread abuse. I may well be wrong about political motivations forcing him to do this, though; he may actually have moral or practical issues with people getting high recreationally at medical marijuana stores. I personally don't have an issue with people paying a lot of money to get a bogus 'scrip and smoke some weed to get high, as long as they aren't driving, but I can understand that some people might.

 

[piasabird]

If the Feds were fed up they would have started conducting raids and charging people with felony possession and distributing charges. This is all Baloney. This is probably caused by complaints and bad publicity, so they are pretending to be tough and trying to make belif they are cracking down. It is all a left wing socialst white-wash by Oh-Bummer & inc.

 

[Nebbers]

i couldnt care less if pot is legal or not but these pot clubs are a joke. theyre just about dispensing pot to recreational users. its always funny when you walk by one and there will be 300lb security dudes covered with tattoos sitting outside. looks real clinical....

Sometimes. If you don't think that it has legitimate medical use though you're mistaken. Ask some people with AIDS or cancer for their thoughts on this. The traditional medical options for dealing with wasting and many other symptoms are junk in comparison.

 

[Nebbers]

No, they are not legal in California. They are legal under California law, but since federal law supersedes California law, they are still illegal in California as well. That's an important distinction people seem to have a hard time with.

As far as the real-world functioning of our legal system, you're right.

That sorta goes against the point of having states in the first place, though.

 

[Nebbers]

I'm not so sure public opinion is for legalization at all, at any state level or at the national level. The public opinion is for legalization of medical use, but I don't think the public is for outright legalization.

I agree with Eagle Keeper in the sense that as long as there was at least a wink wink sense that the distribution was at least somewhat related to medicinal use, the feds were willing to look away. At some point you reach the stage where any pretense of actual medicinal use is out the window, and the federal government can't reasonably be expected to simply ignore the violation of federal laws on large scale. Notice how they went after the big dogs, the ones making millions through large scale distribution. They're not going after the little guys.

Poll figures from two years back put public opinion on outright legalization just below 50%. Something like 45%, I believe. It's continued to rise... I'd wager it's about 50/50 right now.

This matters, considering it was around 30% just a decade ago. It's only a matter of time before it's a majority by a big margin.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Polls of approval do not translate into legalization. What was CA polls? 60% or more? Many polls are emotional responses and worded to bias toward the sponsor

 

[Patranus]

Patranus, you are fundamentally against the practices being done by the government here, but are ok with it because it isn't something you like? That's very very very un-American.

Where did I say that I was ok with the federal governments over step, that I was for or against medical marijuana, or I was against California's ability to assert states rights in this case?

Like I said, this is is the fundamental difference between constitutional conservatives and "progressives".

If California wants to legalize marijuana and universal health care that is fine but that doesn't mean that it should use the authority of the federal government to impose these things on a state like Texas.

On the other side of the coin if Texas wants to define marriage between a man and a woman, it shouldn't force its views on California.

It goes both ways. I personally may agree with some of it but not all of it but it is the constitution. The states were meant to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

The "progressives" want to homogenize the states via the federal government and this is detrimental to the United States and essentially shreds the constitution.

 

[Nebbers]

I'd just like to say that I find it interesting how many completely different meanings the words "conservative", "liberal", "progressive", etc. currently have.

They've become almost useless as labels because they require clarification for anyone to know what is really meant by them.

 

[Patranus]

I'd just like to say that I find it interesting how many completely different meanings the words "conservative", "liberal", "progressive", etc. currently have.

They've become almost useless as labels because they require clarification for anyone to know what is really meant by them.

Huh?

Its pretty clear what constitutional conservatives and "progressives" want.

Constitutional conservatives want the federal government to be bound by the actual text of the constitution and the intent of the founders.

"progressives" don't care about the constitution as the ends justify the means.

Its pretty straightforward.

 

[Nebbers]

Constitutional conservatives is pretty clear, yes.

I mean the words conservative/liberal/progressive used by themselves.

Conservative can refer to constitutional conservatives, or it can refer to moral conservatives, etc... and the use of said words is often not further defined when used in the media and in conversation.

 

[MovingTarget]

I am against using MJ, but support its legalization. Anti-MJ laws do more harm than good when you consider the economic or human consequences of them. I am disappointed to hear this action taking place.

Also, this seems relevant to this thread:
http://www.rifftrax.com/rifftrax/reefer-madness-three-riffer-edition

 

[Nebbers]

I am against using MJ, but support its legalization.

Thank you for being a logical thinker. Shame so many aren't.

 

[sm625]

The county sheriff could deputize any number of people he wants and give them full jurisdiction over the property. They can order the feds out, and enforce that order by any means necessary. Too bad he wont.... there are just too few left who have both cajones and knowledge of the law.