Posted on 02/07/2008 8:02:55 AM PST by SmithL
Medical marijuana in San Francisco may be going up in smoke.
In late December, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration sent letters to landlords of buildings that housed medical cannabis dispensaries in the city, telling them they face the loss of their property and possibly prison if the businesses stay open.
Now, less than two months later, seven of the city's 28 dispensaries have closed or are on the verge of closing, according to medical marijuana supporters and activists. They fear more will follow.
"It's like a dagger in the heart," said Wayne Justmann, a medical marijuana advocate. "We're barely holding on right now."
Dispensary owners are being guarded about the closures, as they are fearful that speaking publicly will draw attention to their individual businesses and put them at greater risk.
So far, the Mason Street Dispensary in the Tenderloin district has closed completely. One of the city's older dispensaries, 194 Church St. - which last year city supervisors tried to name as a historic site - no longer sells marijuana but is still open for people to use the space to get high.
One of the best known dispensaries, the San Francisco Patients' Cooperative on Divisadero Street, will shut its doors at the end of the month after nearly 20 years, according to the Rev. Randi Webster, one of the cooperative's founders.
The owner of the building was "severely frightened" by the DEA letter, and the cooperative founders and the landlord had agreed years ago to part ways in the event of a situation like this, Webster said.
Activists will not disclose the locations of other dispensaries that have or may soon shut their doors.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Haha!
Next they’ll be throwing cancer patients into prison just to see what happens.
Glad to hear the federal government has their priorities straight. DEA bullying continues...
Why are you on this site??
Spare us the hysterical, emotionalized lefty propaganda.
Like most utter morons who throw the word "fascism" around the way a baby throws food, you have no conception of what the word means.
I know people who survived Hitler's Germany, and who lived through the Soviet occupation of the Ukraine.
They know what fascism really is, and they would laugh bitterly at a privileged nitwit who compares enforcement of constitutionally vetted law made by a duly elected representative assembly to the hell on earth they endured.
no use for the Bill of Rights
There is no right to deal drugs in the Constitution.
Why are you on this site??
A question you might more justly ask yourself.
The best solution may be for the SF government to let the dispensaries operate out of government buildings. That way the federal agents would have to go after the city itself. Then the Mayor and others will have to stand behind their policies, and settle the matter one way or another.
There is no prohibition either...Not ALL rights are enumerated in the constitution.
“Freedom for us is a prison for the rulers of minds....”
Of course. Therefore, such matters as regulating the trafficking in medicines and purported medicines is left up to either the states or the people.
The people, through their agent the US Congress, have legislated on this matter.
Why are you on this site??
Dude - if you want to go out and get stoned - then go out and get stoned. Don't feed me the lines of this is a medical necessity and it is for the "good" of the public...
They're having a "Going Out of Business Sale". Medical marijuana for $460/ounce -- marked down from $480/ounce.
$480/ounce is "compassion"? That's caring about the sick and dying? You can get it illegally for half that price!
Look. If the medical marijuana supporters don't care about the sick and dying, why should I?
You ARE Wide Awake alright!
Hey man, Caring Costs! ... Just give them a couple Billion dollars to save the Earth and be quiet!
Gotta keep them white women from having sex with black jazz musicians, doncha know ...
It’s an interesting experiment... Combining this with the proposed cutting of funds due to Berkeley’s insult to the Marines... Let’s put a dome on the city and watch!
thank you - sir - for this posting.
No, I am saying that if you believe that a federal law against drug dealing is unconstitutional, you had better point out an explicit guarantee of the right to deal drugs in the Constitution.
The Berkeley city council is in rebellion against the United States and should be treated as such by the US military (think Fort Sumter).
The medipot clinics, OTOH, are operating legally under state law: the DEA (an agency with no constitutional justification for its existence to begin with) is violating the 10th Amendment by threatening to use police powers to shut them down.
What part of
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "
do you not understand?
Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces Date:1921
1. often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
So, as an "utter moron" - it's amazing how this definition, pretty much, succinctly states what is happening in S.F.. An overly-powerful, Centralized government is going to, under threat of incarceration and confiscation silence opposition to it's unconstitutional, illegal war on SOME drugs. That's pretty much what Fascism is. It might not be as bad as the Nazi's or the Soviets....but it is STILL fascism.
Obviously, you are a TOTAL moron as the Bill of rights does not GRANT RIGHTS to people. What it actually does is state the God-given rights that the Federal government CAN'T take away. The locals and State of CA have all said OK to medical pot. The Fed's have NO SAY in the matter.
So, as for most drug warrior, you have no idea about which you speak, And, you bring the intellectual and conservative mean of this web site down quite a few points. Oh, and just to let you know, before you start the "idiot druggie" argument. I don't do drugs. I don't even drink.
What I do, is believe in Freedom and the Bill of Rights - which you obviously don't.
See, I don't do drugs....I don't even drink or smoke - it's not "good for me" - and I want to live a long, full life.
However, I DO believe in Freedom and the Bill of Rights. And, the Federal government has no place in busting down the doors of places that were opened and ordained by the will of the people of California - whether I agree with them or not.
So, you're little "Dude man - just go get stoned" - makes you look like a pathetic, indoctrinated, moron.
Well, if we don’t understand it, apparently neither does the Robert’s Supreme Court. In June `05, in Gonzales v. Raich, SCOTUS ruled that the Commerce Clause allowed the Federal Government to trump States Rights in cannabis cases.
Period
End of story.
Our government is federal, not central.
If you don't know the difference, ask.
autocratic
Our government is not an autocracy, but a representative republic established on a democratic franchise.
headed by a dictatorial leader
Our government is headed by an elected official who is constrained by the US Constitution in the exercise of his office. He lacks anything resembling dictatorial power - by design.
severe economic and social regimentation
Every year millions of people attempt to enter the US to participate as laborers in the US economy, even as unskilled laborers.
Every year millions of people visit the United States for the purpose of shopping for goods and services they cannot obtain or cannot obtain as cheaply anywhere else.
Every year foreigners invest billions and billions of dollars in the US economy.
None of these economic participants would do these things if they considered our economy to be severely regimented.
As far as social regimentation is concerned, in the US there are adherents of every single religion in the world, residents and citizens from every single ethnic group in the world, speakers of every current language in the world. All of these people are free to worship as they please, read what they please, wear what they please, prepare food as they please, snd every other cultural activity as long as their actions do not injure the community - no honor killings, human sacrifices, etc.
These people would not be here if the US were socially regimented.
forcible suppression of opposition
Anyone in the US is free at any time to criticize the US government. To mount a political campaign against it. To rent time on the public airwaves to denounce it. To call for the impeachment and removal from office of any government official at any time on any pretext.
As long as you do not advocate crimes of violence, you can oppose the government in any way you like.
So, as an "utter moron" - it's amazing how this definition, pretty much, succinctly states what is happening in S.F.. An overly-powerful, Centralized government is going to, under threat of incarceration and confiscation silence opposition to it's unconstitutional, illegal war on SOME drugs.
Apparently you cannot read too well.
The federal government is empowered by the people of the United States to regulate the licensing and trade in substances that their vendors claim to be medication. The federal government is acting entirely within its Constitutional mandate to enforce the law against people who are violating it.
Moreover, they are going out of their way to give people who are engaging in illegal activity notice, so they can voluntarily comply and be spared prosecution. Even further, these people are still free to advocate changing the law in any way they see fit. No one has silenced anybody - as should be clear from this newspaper article which quotes people who quite vocally object to the law as written.
That's pretty much what Fascism is.
We have now established that, even when presented with a dictionary definition, you still have no clue as to what the word means.
Obviously, you are a TOTAL moron as the Bill of rights does not GRANT RIGHTS to people.
I did not say that it did. This is another example of your underdeveloped reading faculties.
What it actually does is state the God-given rights that the Federal government CAN'T take away.
The federal government is not in the business of either granting rights or taking rights away. It is in the business of exercising the powers that the people have delegated to it for the purposes they were delegated. The people delegate these powers to it through the laws that are enacted by the people's elected representatives. This is all Civics 101 - or should be.
The locals and State of CA have all said OK to medical pot. The Fed's have NO SAY in the matter.
You seem to be operating under the confused notion that states and even more localized governments are exempt from federal law. They are not.
So, as for most drug warrior, you have no idea about which you speak,
This is an interesting literary device: your grammar perfectly mirrors the inadequacy of your reasoning.
And, you bring the intellectual and conservative mean of this web site down quite a few points.
Oh, of course. Everyone knows that the real conservatives are hippy pot dealers - especially ones in San Francisco, which is famously America's most conservative city.
Oh, and just to let you know, before you start the "idiot druggie" argument. I don't do drugs. I don't even drink.
Taking you at your word, I will have to operate on the assumption that English is your second, or possibly third, language.
What I do, is believe in Freedom and the Bill of Rights - which you obviously don't.
Everyone says they believe in freedom and the Bill of Rights because it sounds nice. The problem is that some people, like yourself, don't really know much about either and wind up confusing them with licentiousness and their personal feelings.
The federal government is empowered by the people of the United States to exercise the specific powers enumerated in the federal Constitution (the actual text, not the hallucinations you see when you look at it through the Penumbral Emanation Spectacles you have super-glued to your eyeballs).
And anything that is not enumerated is reserved to the people.
And how are the people to exercise these powers?
Obviously through the elected representatives they choose as their agents.
actual text, not the hallucinations you see
Why are the defenders of hallucinogens always accusing others of hallucinating? It must be a side effect.
So much for 'original intent'. By today's standards, Washington and Jefferson would be in the federal pen serving decades-long sentences for drug offenses, as they grew hemp and opium poppies on their estates.
The elect federal representatives to exercise the listed powers specifically permitted the federal government. They elect state and local representatives, or forego any middleman at all, for everything else. Duh.
Yep; that's soundasleep's governing philosophy in one sentence.
The people are the people of the United States. They cannot exercise their power corporately through the representatives of one local jurisdiction.
I'll forgo the "duh" and observe that this is just common sense.
It almost goes without saying that you predictably lack the common courtesy to ping someone when you are discussing him, but more importantly I never mentioned the interstate commerce clause.
It's irrelevant, because marijuana grown in CA, fraudulently prescribed in CA and consumed in CA wouldn't fall under that clause.
Well, if we don’t understand it, apparently neither does the Robert’s Supreme Court. In June `05, in Gonzales v. Raich, SCOTUS ruled that the Commerce Clause allowed the Federal Government to trump States Rights in cannabis cases.
Period
End of story.
_________
Um, that was not the Roberts court as his first day was not until September 2005, but that is only according to the official Supreme Court website, on which a nifty little pdf file can be found. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf
Period.
End of Story.
Wrong: the feds can apply the Commerce Clause to anything that ~might~ affect interstate commerce. That's what the Wickard precedent was about, and that's how they justify their 10th Amendment violations.
That doesn't obtain here.
Yet another extra-constitutional game played by the FDR administration to advance its socialist agenda.
mea culpa
It was Rehnquist - and he was a dissenter.
True. However, these vendors are touting marijuana as a medicine, not simply an agricultural product, placing it under the 1938 Act.
... and keeping slaves.
What's your point? They did it so you should also be allowed?
Well, no, they weren't. Proposition 215 did not allow for the sale of medical marijuana. A caregiver could be compensated for the cost of growing, but that's about it.
The medical marijuana "clinics" are selling it for $480/ounce -- illegal even under California law.
The test is, "has a substantial effect on".
Second, it's the Necessary and Proper Clause that gives Congress the power to regulate these non-interstate activities. The Commerce Clause only allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
While I have no sympathy for San Fran drug dealers, you are taking the wrong approach. The Fed Govt has only those powers enumerated in the Constitution. All other powers are reserved for the States. The Constition gives the Fed. Govt NO POWER to legislate on purely intra-state drug use or transactions. This is a State issue.
So if I hop into my little Cessna and fly from one part of my state to another, Congress (via the FAA) has no power to regulate my intrastate activity. I can take of and land when I please and fly at whatever altitude I want.
Hey, what are a few mid-air accidents? A couple of hundred dead every month is a small price to pay for freedom and liberty, my friend.
And the people of the State of California have voted to allow it.
We are a Republic NOT an empire.
Yes! And there are 50 states!
Read the USSC "Raich" decision
Held: Congress’ Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law. Pp. 6—31.
The Tenth Amendment references two entities: (1) the states and (2) the people.
"The people" (singular) refers to the people of the United States, not to the peoples of the individual states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.