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 ...
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.
Bambi is clearing out the choom competitors for his bro’s in the Cartels. They give good campaign contributions.
Way to shore up your base there Obama.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
“Works for me. That would apply to the drugs alcohol and tobacco as well, right?”
As it is now we are not only subsidizing their stupidity but keeping them alive and allowing them to reproduce.
Is there any of Hussein’s base he hasn’t sold out?
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.