Whether You Like it or Not - California Will Legalize Pot Next Year

cbs47 ^ | 9-27-09 | cakid1

[cakid1]

Whether You Like it or Not - California Will Legalize Pot Next Year

(That seems to be the idea behind a new article out today)

According to a well known, and outspoken leader from the left it’s a good bet that the state will legalize Pot next year.

Part of the reason?

The state needs...

[Mojave]

Please source where I've smeared the Founders

Please source where I've smeared the Red Hot Chili Peppers.

[Palin Republic]

>There’s no hemp grown in America?

We’re trying, but the FedGov is determined to suffocate the independent family farm by any means necessary.

You should try and keep up of the future of American freedom means as much to you as venting your impotent rage.

Hemp legal in Oregon, held up by U.S. law
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/10/04/Hemp-legal-in-Oregon-held-up-by-US-law/UPI-75401254695797/

Industrial hemp supporters wait on federal OK to grow
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/10/dude_wheres_my_industrial_hemp.html

[Mojave]

No source for that assertion, of course.

Bzzzzt, See Post 334 to you.

You do realize that such short term memory loss may be a sign of permanent neurological damage?

[Mojave]

the FedGov is determined to suffocate the independent family farm by any means necessary.

Paranoia is another symptom.

[Palin Republic]

>Paranoia is another symptom.

You trust the FedGov to have our best interests at heart?

The Nanny State does not know best.

What kind of conservative are you? My guess is one of those ‘Compassionate’ types.

I notice you’ve completely avoided furthering discussion of domestic hemp cultivation. How cowardly.

[Palin Republic]

>See Post 334

You’ve never read the Raich decision?

[Mojave]

You trust the FedGov to have our best interests at heart?

Translation: You can't support your paranoid and hyberbolic assertion that "FedGov is determined to suffocate the independent family farm by any means necessary."

Whatta surprise. You DU gals are helpless outside your natural environment.

[Mojave]

Paranoia, short term memory loss, irrationality...

"Proposition 215 allows patients to cultivate their own marijuana simply because federal laws prevent the sale of marijuana, and a state initiative cannot overrule those laws."

[Palin Republic]

>You DU gals are helpless

I’m not the one impotently whining on the internet, while the dope dens I hate carry on selling a product the public is willing to buy.

Flail and froth all you like. San Diego won’t notice at all.

They know better than to trust Washington, DC’s jackbooted, tax-fattened, gun-grabbing thugs.

[Palin Republic]

You’ve never read the Raich decision.

[Mojave]

You’ve never read the Raich decision.

The Raich decision doesn't conflict with Proposition 215.

Proposition removed a small subset of California's state laws against marijuana. Nothing more. Try to remember.

"Proposition 215 allows patients to cultivate their own marijuana simply because federal laws prevent the sale of marijuana, and a state initiative cannot overrule those laws."

[Mojave]

I’m not the one impotently whining on the internet

You do little else. (Tip o'the hat to Robert Bork.)

[philman_36]

Tom was asked a question about 215.
And my comment was about you and your posting tendencies.
Wait for the buzz to subside before posting.
Hurry up and graduate kindergarten.

The that was established regulated whiskey manufacture.
And you're lecturing me about waiting for the buzz to subside before posting? Pot, meet kettle.

The burden of proof for your sourceless assertions lies on you.
I sourced my assertion.
During the 1791 winter session of Congress both houses approved a bill that put an excise tax on all distilled spirits.
You've made sourceless assertions a number of times so I don't see why you try that gambit. Shouldn't you practice what you preach?
Would you like me to show you an instance or two where you stated opinion as fact?

[philman_36]

You left off part of my post. You asserted...Dopers smear the Founders across multiple threads.
(multiple replies from you have already established that you presume I'm a doper simply because I differ with you on this issue, so you can't say "I didn't mean you in particular")
Then from my response you posted a snippet...Please source where I've smeared the Founders (without an ellipse).
What I actually posted, as you well know, was..."Please source where I've smeared the Founders and give any evidence that establishes that I'm a doper."
So in other words you can't do either and you attempt to avoid the issue that you raised and divert the subject.
Once again you can't substantiate what you claim.

Please source where I've smeared the Red Hot Chili Peppers.
I never claimed that you smeared them so why would I need to?

[Palin Republic]

>The Raich decision doesn't conflict with Proposition 215.

Oh that's funny. Tell us another one Grandpa. You haven't the foggiest idea what and/or why the USSC ruled in Raich.

Not only did Gonzales v. Raich exacerbate a conflict between state and federal rights, but it also failed to address California’s individual laws regarding medici- nal marijuana. This has created a conflict be- tween DEA agents and local marijuana dis- pensaries; the DEA agents actively pursue medical marijuana dispensaries and patients, who are people merely claiming a right their state has given them. Few can deny that this system is inefficient and should be reformed.
http://www.culturesocietypraxis.org/index.php/csp/article/viewPDFInterstitial/150/116

>Proposition 215 allows patients to cultivate their own marijuana

It's been updated, in case you care to keep up:

It allows patients with a valid doctor's recommendation, and the patient's designated Primary Caregivers, to possess and cultivate marijuana for personal medical use, and has since been expanded to protect a growing system of collective and cooperative distribution. The Act added Section 11362.5 to the California Health and Safety Code. This law has caused much conflict in the United States between states' rights advocates and those who support a stronger federal presence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_215_%281996%29

Your impression of a clueless jackboot is too over-the-top to be convincing. Nobody could really be dumb enough to not comprehend the state-federal issues raised by 215.

the San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted to step up their attack on the Senate bill with a concurrent legal challenge that seeks to overturn Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act, a 1996, voter-approved initiative that says chronically ill people with a doctor’s recommendation can use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Prop. 215 won by a 12-point margin statewide and even garnered majority support in traditionally conservative San Diego County.

County Counsel John Sansone said his office expects to file the lawsuit in federal court sometime after the first of the year. The lawsuit, Sansone said, will argue that the Controlled Substances Act, the law passed by congress in 1970 that classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug—in the same category as PCP, LSD and the so-called “date-rape” drug, GHB—supercedes any state law that legalizes marijuana for medical use. Schedule I drugs are considered to have no medical value. “The question is whether or not [Prop. 215] is written in such a way that it conflicts with federal law,” Sansone said. “Our argument is going to be that we believe they conflict to the point of crossing the line.” Sansone said he advised the supervisors on the pros and cons of filing such a lawsuit but wouldn’t comment further, citing attorney-client privilege. He said that from the beginning, when the supervisors were only going to challenge SB 420, he’d told them it would be an “uphill battle.”

http://www.doctordeluca.com/Library/WOD/WPS3-MedMj/SanDiegoAssualtOnMedMj05.pdf

The case DOES NOT hold that Proposition 215 is unconstitutional, nor does it prohibit California from continuing to honor the procedures and protections set forth in Prop. 215. What the case DOES say is that following California law will not protect a person from prosecution under federal laws.

A big problem for law enforcement is that this legal conflict puts it between the proverbial "rock and a hard place." The conflict between California law, which basically decriminalizes possession of marijuana for medical use, and the federal law which still makes it a felony to possess it, even for medical use, creates a quandary for the California law enforcement officer. Which law governs?

This decision adds to the concerns we have expressed in the past regarding actions which might be taken by the federal government to enforce the CSA. In correspondence last year from the Director of the federal Drug Enforcement Agency, to the California Attorney General, he stated explicitly that DEA is obligated to enforce existing, lawful, federal laws, even if they conflict with state laws on the same subject.

An example of a potential conflict can be seen with the proliferation of medical marijuana distribution centers throughout the state. Cities and counties are enacting (or not) zoning ordinances addressing the issue. In some jurisdictions the centers are permitted, but regulated as to location, operating hours, etc. In others, they are prohibited. Even though Prop. 215 doesn't explicitly authorize such centers, local law enforcement has taken no action to close them.

However, the Raich decision raises the question of whether FEDERAL law enforcement will be raiding those centers, as they have cannabis clubs in the past (e.g. the Oakland and Santa Cruz Cannabis Clubs)? It would appear that they have that authority.

Still another concern is what law enforcement should do when a California judge dismisses a cultivation and/or possession charge against a defendant, based on Prop 215, and the judge then orders law enforcement to return the marijuana to the defendant?

Under the federal Controlled Substances Act, it is a felony to transfer or give marijuana to one not lawfully entitled to posses it. It is illogical to argue that a state court judge can ORDER a California peace officer to violate federal law by compelling the officer to transfer or give the marijuana back to the defendant.

Returning the marijuana appears to be a felony under federal law and, therefore, the court's order would be unlawful. The Raich decision seems to reinforce that position since it clearly states that the federal law trumps California law on this subject. It is logical, therefore, that a challenge to such an order would be best fought in the federal courts. A petition, by the city or county, to the federal court to review the actions of a state court, as it pertains to federal law, is probably the way to proceed.
http://www.jones-mayer.com/clientalerts/ca2009060905.htm

recent medical marijuana reforms have been undermined by the Supreme Court in the decision of Gonzales v. Raich, which holds that possession of marijuana is illegal even if a state has approved it for medicinal use. Although the ruling unconditionally forbids marijuana possession, it does not strike down the states’ initiatives regarding medicinal marijuana, thereby leaving the federal and state government ambiguous in how to interact with each other and enforce its laws. This controversy has drawn attention to the question of whether the right to use medical marijuana is a fundamental right held by an individual. The Supreme Court decision conceives even deeper questions regarding citizens’ right to initiative and states’ right to legislate its own healthcare policy.

http://www.culturesocietypraxis.org/index.php/csp/article/viewPDFInterstitial/150/116

[altair]

And why would sellers (who are breaking the law now), want to do the paperwork and pay the taxes?

Because they no longer have to fear and pay off police? Or perhaps they wouldn't and find something else illicit and lucrative to peddle.

[altair]

Why are liberaltarians so anxious to increase taxes and grow the government to even greater proportions?

I voted for medical marijuana when it was on the ballot because I knew it would upset some people I very much wanted to be upset. I will do the same if full decriminalization appears on the ballot and I'm still registered to vote in CA, even though once my relocation goes through, I'm never ever going back to California.

I know for sure that I would rather have the Assembly and Senate sitting around under a tree outside getting stoned than inside the chambers continuing the destruction of my once beloved birth state.

Alaska and Oregon had it decriminalized a couple decades back and civilization hardly ended.

[Mojave]

I sourced my assertion. During the 1791 winter session of Congress both houses approved a bill that put an excise tax on all distilled spirits.

And the bill included provisions regulating the manufacture of whiskey. Remember?

[Mojave]

I never claimed that you smeared them so why would I need to?

Think about that.

[Mojave]

It's been updated, in case you care to keep up:

Your ignorance and dishonesty is a marvel to behold. State legislation has changed, Proposition 215 has not.

Not only did Gonzales v. Raich exacerbate a conflict between state and federal rights, but it also failed to address California’s individual laws regarding medici- nal marijuana.

Weishan Gu, not Raich.

This law has caused much conflict in the United States between states' rights advocates

Wikipedia, not Raich.

Our argument is going to be that we believe they conflict to the point of crossing the line.

Sansone, not Raich.

Although the ruling unconditionally forbids marijuana possession, it does not strike down the states’ initiatives regarding medicinal marijuana

It does not strike down the states’ initiatives regarding medicinal marijuana. Nice foot shot!