Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. cracks down on "world's largest" medical marijuana dispensary
Reuters ^ | July 11, 2012 | Dan Whitcomb

Posted on 07/12/2012 1:20:55 AM PDT by grundle

Federal prosecutors have filed civil forfeiture actions against an Oakland medical marijuana dispensary that bills itself as the world's largest

Harborside says it is the largest medical marijuana dispensary in the world, serving more than 100,000 patients

In a statement on its website, the clinic said, "Harborside has nothing to be ashamed of, and will contest the Federal actions openly and publicly, with every legal means at our disposal."

"We look forward to our day in court, and are confident that justice is on our side. Come what may, we shall continue to care for our patients unless we are physically prevented from doing so," the statement said.

California, which in 1996 became the first state to decriminalize medical marijuana. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have followed suit.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: cannabis; drugs; drugwar; federalism; marijuana; medicalmarijuana; medpot; tenthamendment; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd
This is why property rights, states' rights, and the 10th amendment are so important - it's too bad that liberals love to mock those things. Gonzales v Raich showed us what liberals truly think about medical marijuana, as every single liberal on the court voted against medical marijuana. The fact that Clarence Thomas voted in favor of medical marijuana must really confuse the liberals.
1 posted on 07/12/2012 1:21:06 AM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: grundle

This should be an interesting court battle, although I’m certain that it will end badly for the marijuana people. However, this will be left-wingers from CA (most assuredly of the minority variety) vs. left-wingers in the federal government (the leaders of which are of the same minority variety). Even though the Oakland people are probably pretty shady, I’m still rooting for them on a states’ rights basis.


2 posted on 07/12/2012 1:32:00 AM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Bambi is clearing out the choom competitors for his bro’s in the Cartels. They give good campaign contributions.


3 posted on 07/12/2012 1:45:15 AM PDT by Blado (When the government controls your healthcare it owns your body and you are a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

100,000 "Patients"


4 posted on 07/12/2012 2:33:02 AM PDT by dsrtsage (One half of all people have below average IQ. In the US the number is 54%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Way to shore up your base there Obama.


5 posted on 07/12/2012 2:39:59 AM PDT by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to the tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

This is why I never understood the “commerce clause” controversy with Obamacare. If a product that CANNOT BE LEGALLY SOLD ACROSS STATE LINES is subject to Federal law due to interstate commerce, than anything falls under that umbrella.


6 posted on 07/12/2012 3:27:34 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Yep. As Clarence Thomas said in his dissent...

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

7 posted on 07/12/2012 3:52:28 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Blado
Gee, I wonder why NO President wishes to close the border?
8 posted on 07/12/2012 5:56:38 AM PDT by Aevery_Freeman (Yes We Can Vote him Out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Back when all the great conservatives were gushing about their bonehead pick of the week for president I suggested we should push to draft Thomas but anyone who replied did so negatively saying we need him more on the SC. But Thomas would likely get a SC choice and he would know who to select to replace him.


9 posted on 07/12/2012 6:31:55 AM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: grundle

While every molecule in my body detests illegal drugs and I have nothing but disdain for drug users, as believer in our Constitution, I certainly question; If an Amendment was required for the Federal Government to ban alcohol, how come they can ban any drug without a similar Constitutional Amendment?

The “War on Drugs” IMO is completely unconstitutional and has done nothing but waste tons of money and created a lucrative and deadly industry.

Let the druggies ingest whatever they want but under no circumstances allow a penny of taxpayer’s money be spent on them for ANY reason. If they cannot pay for some medical procedure, let them die. As it is now, people are dying and many are external to the drug trade. Remove the huge illegal profit motive from the equation and then you only have to deal with the scum who want to damage their brain.

And for the status quo people who will do a Saul Alinsky and claim well what if they get in a car and kill someone, well they are doing that now and so are drunks. Stiffen the DWI penalties with mandatory prison terms.


10 posted on 07/12/2012 7:16:58 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H; Wolfie; grundle

Step 1: Give Arizona to the Sinaloa Cartel. (done)
Step 2: Send FBI agents to be bean counters for the smuggling through Arizona, ensuring the government’s take. (done)
Step 3: Shut down domestic pot growers. (in progress)


11 posted on 07/12/2012 8:05:16 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer
The “War on Drugs” IMO is completely unconstitutional and has done nothing but waste tons of money and created a lucrative and deadly industry.

Let the druggies ingest whatever they want but under no circumstances allow a penny of taxpayer’s money be spent on them for ANY reason. If they cannot pay for some medical procedure, let them die.

Works for me. That would apply to the drugs alcohol and tobacco as well, right?

12 posted on 07/12/2012 8:09:38 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“Works for me. That would apply to the drugs alcohol and tobacco as well, right?”


Absolutely! You deliberately ingest or inhale a substance known to cause death, don’t come running to the taxpayer to save your ignorant butt.

As it is now we are not only subsidizing their stupidity but keeping them alive and allowing them to reproduce.


13 posted on 07/12/2012 8:15:26 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Is there any of Hussein’s base he hasn’t sold out?


14 posted on 07/12/2012 8:26:29 AM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
As Clarence Thomas said in his dissent...

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

And he was proved correct when the majority that upheld Obamacare cited the Raich ruling as support.

Every time a FReeper posts support for the War On Drugs, he/she is supporting Obamacare and all its ilk.

15 posted on 07/12/2012 10:53:50 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer
If an Amendment was required for the Federal Government to ban alcohol, how come they can ban any drug without a similar Constitutional Amendment?

This history of our drug laws is quite byzantine (to say the least), but the the very first drug law, was, in fact, a tax law. The Marihuana Tax Stamp Act of 1937, which basically required a tax stamp for the sale and possession of cannabis. The logic was this: require a tax stamp, and then refuse to issue one. Presto. The substance is prohibited. It was modeled after the Firearms Transfer Act of 1931 which used the same mechanism to outlaw machine guns. Because, after all, Congress has the power to tax (just ask Justice Roberts).

16 posted on 07/12/2012 10:58:41 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

Yes Wolfie, I am familiar with that Marijuana tax stamp and the refusal of the government to issue one.

Every day it seems like we are becoming more like the former Soviet Union or East Germany/Berlin, Cuba etc.

Have we been that asleep at the switch? I think so.

As the current candidate (assumed) for the GOP shows, we need to get much more involved in the initial selection process for EVERY elected position if we are ever to hold true to the Founders brilliance of LIMITED government.

Loyalty to the party (either one) IMO is disloyalty to the Founders and the constitution. Party loyalty has given us a government the Founders would not recognize and they would chastise us for what we threw away.


17 posted on 07/12/2012 11:30:42 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
The Marihuana Tax Stamp Act of 1937, which basically required a tax stamp for the sale and possession of cannabis. The logic was this: require a tax stamp, and then refuse to issue one. Presto. The substance is prohibited. It was modeled after the Firearms Transfer Act of 1931 which used the same mechanism to outlaw machine guns.

Interesting! I suppose the Controlled Substances Act has rendered the Marihuana Tax Stamp Act moot - but has the Firearms Transfer Act been challenged and upheld?

18 posted on 07/12/2012 11:55:22 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Showing again that gun-grabbers and drug-banners are natural allies.
19 posted on 07/12/2012 11:57:20 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

I’m sure the CSA superseded everything else, but by then the natural course of ignoring the Constitution had been well established. The bottom line is that Power does what it wants. If they learned anything from the repeal of the Volstead Act, it was that letting the People have a voice is a mistake.


20 posted on 07/12/2012 12:10:16 PM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
by then the natural course of ignoring the Constitution had been well established. The bottom line is that Power does what it wants.

Sometimes with the vocal support of self-proclaimed "conservatives."

21 posted on 07/12/2012 1:29:50 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Law got nuttin’ to do wid it. You wanna sell beer in Chicago, you pay off the mob. Or you don’t sell no more beer in Chicago. You gotcha a nice little pot mart here. Pity if anything wuz to happen to it. Now, about that campaign contribution...


22 posted on 07/12/2012 1:43:35 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Human nature, I suppose. I’ve always said most “conservatives” would crap their pants if they ever had to live under the Constitutional government they say they support.


23 posted on 07/13/2012 7:49:07 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson