BIGUN 1,489 #1 October 7, 2011 QuoteSAN FRANCISCO — Federal prosecutors are cracking down on some pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores that they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges and confiscation of their property even if they are operating legally under the state's 15-year-old medical marijuana law. In an escalation of the ongoing conflict between the U.S. government and the nation's burgeoning medical marijuana industry, at least 16 pot shops or their landlords received letters this week stating they are violating federal drug laws, even though medical marijuana is legal in California. The state's four U.S. attorneys were scheduled Friday to announce a broader coordinated crackdown. SOURCE: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44806723/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/calif-pot-dispensaries-told-feds-shut-down?gt1=43001 OK. So most of you guys know my side on the pot issue as a recreational activity... But, we're talking medicinal use here . However, I also have a side where Big Brother throwing it's weight around in spite of the 10th Amendment causes me concern. First, I don't understand why my friends across the aisle aren't raising an uproar with Obama's new crusade against the medical marijuana community, and 2) here's a little tactic for California. Rent State Property to all the Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. Then when the Feds show up... we might have a little jurisdictional issue (Lawrocket?) How cool would that be?Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #2 October 7, 2011 I was hoping they would get prop 19 passed last year. Not because I smoke pot. Haven't for more than 10 years. (and I don't care if you smoke pot) I wanted it passed because that's about a strong a 10th amendment play as a state can do. Yeah, there are the firearms freedom acts that have been passed, but you don't hear about those in the news.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 October 7, 2011 Two problems: (1) supremacy clause. Sure, they aren't committing California crimes but they are committing federal crimes. (2) This is the effect of the reading of the Commerce Clause commenced by the progressives and going all the way through to its zenith in Gonzales v. Raich. Google Ginzalez v. Raich, in which the SCOTUS held that Congress may regulate even private growth, possession and use of marijuana because, well, you must have gotten the seeds from somewhere, which is commerce. Majority opinion was by the usual suspects - Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer with a concurrence by Scalia. The dissenting Justices were rehnquist, o'Connor and Thomas. Read Thomas' dissent for an example of a Justice calling utter bullshit. And you'll see why I often really appreciate Thomas as a unique voice on the bench. Wrote Thomas: [Quote]If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite." I think plenty of people would like Thomas a lot more if they actually read the guy. To see Thomas REALLY go at it, take a look at his dissent in Gonzales v. Oregon, where he dissented because Raich was controlling opinion and called bullshit on the Court again for being inconsistent and artbitrary. A master of the bench slap. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #4 October 7, 2011 QuoteWrote Thomas: [Quote]If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite." Yep. Same thing we gun nuts have been complaining about for years concerning intrastate gun transactions. If you don't cross a state line, it's not interstate commerce, and the feds then have no right to regulate it. But the general public doesn't care about actually standing up for gun rights. But when it comes to pot, no that's gonna really piss off a bunch of people. And maybe it will finally bring this issue to a head. All we need is an armed stare-down between California and Federal law enforcement authorities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #5 October 7, 2011 Quote Google Ginzalez v. Raich, in which the SCOTUS held that Congress may regulate even private growth, possession and use of marijuana because, well, you must have gotten the seeds from somewhere, which is commerce. Isn't this a chicken versus the egg question? Obama/Holder reneged on their support for 'medical' pot almost immediately after taking office. Still, the timing of this is a bit odd - does it get him votes somewhere? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #6 October 7, 2011 Everyday the new boss seems more like the old boss ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
charlie5 0 #7 October 7, 2011 QuoteQuoteFirst, I don't understand why my friends across the aisle aren't raising an uproar with Obama's new crusade against the medical marijuana community Because they can't admit that their beloved leader is no better than the last.The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
