A Real Important Message To Patients

[+Malamute]

 

 

Again, does anyone have ONE SINGLE ARTICLE of a grower or patient being raided by the feds under Obama?

 

I just wanted to make sure you say that correctly... raids have taken place, but no Federal convictions have followed.

[GanjaWarrior]

That Rolling Stone article makes no sense. First it says he is busting growers who operate in full compliance. Then in the next sentence it states more than 100 raids on dispos. So which is it?

 

And in all of this, why is it never mentioned there are probably 3-5 x as many dispos are there were before Obama, so obviously there are going to be more busts.

 

I'm sure there were a lot more traffic tickets given out 10 years after the Model T came out. Does that mean people got worse at driving? No, there were just lots more cars on the road thus lots more opportunities for things to happen.

 

Again, does anyone have ONE SINGLE ARTICLE of a grower or patient being raided by the feds under Obama?

 

it makes perfect sense...who is he raiding...mmj....a lot more tickets after the model t...well ya that makes sense...did the president back then say he wouldn't issue federal tickets? ya kinda lame comparison isnt it... we may not have disp in our law...they do in california...courts just told em they cant even ban them from a city....so ya obammers raiding mmj left and right. the most foolish thing you can do is think obammers better than mitt when it comes to mmj... they are bith the same...out to get us....mitt just didnt lie about it.

[+Malamute]

it makes perfect sense...who is he raiding...mmj....a lot more tickets after the model t...well ya that makes sense...did the president back then say he wouldn't issue federal tickets? ya kinda lame comparison isnt it... we may not have disp in our law...they do in california...courts just told em they cant even ban them from a city....

 

They actually do not have "dispensaries" in California. Let me rephrase, Collectives and Co-Ops are legal in California, for profit dispensaries are illegal still. A vast chunk of "co-ops and collectives" in California are operating illegally as sole proprieterships, partnerships and for profit businesses. The vast majority of dispensaries raided were operating in school zones and most recieved notice to cease operations in said area.

 

Many other examples not in the area, but that is a mjority of the shutdowns taking place.

[GanjaWarrior]

I don't think he actually said this at all. Not at all. MPP, ASA, and DPA misinterpreted it on a grand scale, and passed it on to a lot of activists.

 

he did. the videos out there you can see his lips move....no one doctored it up.

[Dr. Bob]

bob....go home. you post nonsensical bs every day...never once have i seen you post a link.... do some research. if you read a bit on your own people may feel like you have a valid point instead of just being annoying...

 

Listen friend, a/ I post information, good and accurate information, you just don't like to listen. b/ YOU SIR are the one claiming all the proof of poor, innocent patients fully compliant with their state laws being raided by Obama.

 

YOU put the statement out, I simply asked you to post the link to an article so we could judge for ourselves. YOU won't do it, because it isn't there and you love to make statements without the facts to back them up. So here is your chance sunshine, just respond like an adult to a request for the original source information and PROVIDE IT or admit you don't have any actual evidence to support your 'opion'.

 

This is what a debate is, you make a statement, give evidence to support your point of view, respond to the point of view and evidence of the opposing view. Grow up.

 

Dr. Bob

 

PS, I don't repeat links that are already clearly in this thread, my statements are clear and referenced as needed. ESPECIALLY if someone asks me for the source, I just give it.

[Dr. Bob]

Cool, that will set this whole argument straight. Just post the link to the video where Obama says, "I am leaving this up to the states" and we can move on to the next one.

 

Agree, just post it and it is settled. Show where he made the statement and then show where his DEA arrested a patient clearly following their local MMJ law. Hopefully from MI so we know what is in the law and can see for ourselves if they were following it.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Here is the memo, you might want to read it again....

 

http://www.justice.g...l-marijuana.pdf

 

Dr. Bob

 

　

 

individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department's core enforcement priorities.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[AKenewell]

WASHINGTON -- Elected lawmakers in five states have a message for the federal government: Don't interfere with state medical marijuana laws.

 

In an open letter to the federal government, lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle called on the government to stop using scarce law enforcement resources on taking pot away from medical marijuana patients.

 

"States with medical marijuana laws have chosen to embrace an approach that is based on science, reason, and compassion. We are lawmakers from these states," the lawmakers explained in their letter.

 

"Our state medical marijuana laws differ from one another in their details, such as which patients qualify for medical use; how much marijuana patients may possess; whether patients and caregivers may grow marijuana; and whether regulated entities may grow and sell marijuana to patients. Each of our laws, however, is motivated by a desire to protect seriously ill patients from criminal penalties under state law."

 

The letter -- signed by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-Calif.), Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-Wash.), Rep. Antonio Maestas (D-N.M.), Sen. Cisco McSorley (D-N.M.), Assemblyman Chris Norby (R-Calif.), Rep. Deborah Sanderson (R-Maine) and Sen. Pat Steadman (D-Colo.) -- comes directly on the heels of a federal raid in the heart of California's pot legalization movement: medical marijuana training school Oaksterdam University in downtown Oakland, where U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration officials on Monday blocked off doors with yellow tape and carried off trash bags full of unknown substances to a nearby van. An IRS spokeswoman could not comment on the raid except to say the agents had a federal search warrant.

 

The lawmakers called on President Obama to live up to his campaign promise to leave the regulation of medical marijuana to the states, adding raids would only "force patients underground" into the illegal drug market.

 

The president as a candidate promised to maintain a hands-off approach toward pot clinics that adhere to state law. At a 2007 town hall meeting in Manchester, N.H., Obama said raiding patients who use marijuana for medicinal purposes "makes no sense." At another town hall in Nashua, N.H., he said the Justice Department's prosecution of medical marijuana users was "not a good use of our resources." Yet the number of Justice Department raids on marijuana dispensaries has continued to rise.

 

Read the full letter here:

 

Over the last two decades, 16 states and the District of Columbia have chosen to depart from federal policy and chart their own course on the issue of medical marijuana, as states are entitled to do under our federalist system of government. These states have rejected the fallacy long promoted by the federal government -- that marijuana has absolutely no accepted medical use and that seriously ill people must choose between ignoring their doctors' medical advice or risking arrest and prosecution. They have stopped using their scarce law enforcement resources to punish patients and those who care for them and have instead spent considerable resources and time crafting programs that will provide patients with safe and regulated access to medical marijuana.

States with medical marijuana laws have chosen to embrace an approach that is based on science, reason, and compassion. We are lawmakers from these states.

 

Our state medical marijuana laws differ from one another in their details, such as which patients qualify for medical use; how much marijuana patients may possess; whether patients and caregivers may grow marijuana; and whether regulated entities may grow and sell marijuana to patients. Each of our laws, however, is motivated by a desire to protect seriously ill patients from criminal penalties under state law; to provide a safe and reliable source of medical marijuana; and to balance and protect the needs of local communities and other residents in the state. The laws were drafted with considered thoughtfulness and care, and are thoroughly consistent with the American tradition of using the states as laboratories for public policy innovation and experimentation.

 

Unfortunately, these laws face a mounting level of federal hostility and confusing mixed messages from the Obama Administration, the Department of Justice, and the various United States Attorneys. In 2008, then candidate Obama stated that as President, he would not use the federal government to circumvent state laws on the issue of medical marijuana. This promise was followed up in 2009 by President Obama with a Department of Justice memo from former Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden stating that federal resources should not generally be focused "on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana." This provided welcome guidance for state legislators and administrators and encouraged us to move forward with drafting and passing responsible regulatory legislation.

 

Nonetheless, the United States Attorneys in several states with medical marijuana laws have chosen a different course. They have explicitly threatened that federal investigative and prosecutorial resources "will continue to be directed" towards the manufacture and distribution of medical marijuana, even if such activities are permitted under state law. These threats have generally been timed to influence pending legislation or encourage the abandonment of state and local regulatory programs. They contradict President Obama's campaign promise and policy his first year in office and serve to push medical marijuana activity back into the illicit market.

 

Most disturbing is that a few United States Attorneys warn that state employees who implement the laws and regulations of our states are not immune from criminal prosecution under the federal Controlled Substances Act. They do so notwithstanding the fact that no provision exists within the Controlled Substances Act that makes it a crime for a state employee to enforce regulations that help a state define conduct that is legal under its own state laws.

 

Hundreds of state and municipal employees are currently involved in the licensing and regulation of medical marijuana producers and providers in New Mexico, Colorado, Maine, and California, and have been for years. The federal government has never threatened, much less prosecuted, any of these employees. Indeed, the federal government has not, to our knowledge, prosecuted state employees for performing their ministerial duties under state law in modern history. It defies logic and precedent that the federal government would start prosecuting state employees now.

 

Recognizing the lack of any real harm to state employees, a number of states have moved forward. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie drew on his own experience as a former United States Attorney in deciding that New Jersey state workers were not realistically at risk of federal prosecution in his decision to move forward implementing New Jersey’s medical marijuana program. Rhode Island, Vermont, Arizona, and the District of Columbia are also in the process of implementing their state laws.

 

Nonetheless, the suggestion that state employees are at risk is have a destructive and chilling impact. Washington Governor Christine Gregoire vetoed legislation to regulate medical marijuana in her state and Delaware Governor Jack Markell suspended implementation of his state's regulatory program after receiving warnings from the United States Attorneys in their states about state employees. Additionally, a number of localities in California ended or suspended regulatory programs after receiving similar threats to their workers.

 

We, the undersigned state legislators, call on state and local officials to not be intimidated by these empty federal threats. Our state medical marijuana programs should be implemented and move forward. Our work, and the will of our voters, should see the light of day.

 

We call on the federal government not to interfere with our ability to control and regulate how medical marijuana is grown and distributed. Let us seek clarity rather than chaos. Don’t force patients underground, to fuel the illegal drug market.

 

And finally, we call on President Obama to recommit to the principles and policy on which he campaigned and asserted his first year in office. Please respect our state laws. And don't use our employees as pawns in your zealous and misguided war on medical marijuana.

 

Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-CA)

 

Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-WA)

 

Representative Antonio Maestas (D-NM)

 

Senator Cisco McSorley (D-NM)

 

Assemblymember Chris Norby (R-CA)

 

Representative Deborah Sanderson (R-ME)

 

Senator Pat Steadman (D-CO)

 

In bold is a copy of the letter lawmakers sent to Obama in regards to MM.

[MightyMightyMezz]

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/dec/08/dea_state_cops_raid_legal_michig

 

DEA, State Cops Raid Legal Michigan Medical Marijuana Grows [FEATURE]

 

 

by Phillip Smith, December 08, 2010, 05:29pm, (Issue #662)

Posted in: DEA News Feature Police Raids State & Local Executive Branches

 

Once again, this time last week in Michigan, the federal DEA has teamed up with recalcitrant state and local law enforcement in a bid to negate the will of the public and the law of the land. Heavily-armed state and federal lawmen raided a pair of medical marijuana gardens in the town of Okemos, outside Lansing, breaking windows, throwing smoke grenades, and seizing thousands of dollars worth of equipment and medical marijuana plants -- all in a raid of a facility that is undeniably within the confines of Michigan's medical marijuana law.

 

 

Michigan marijuana activists take to the streets (courtesy Capital City Care Givers)

The gardens subleased to two individual caregivers by Capital City Care Givers in nearby Lansing contained a total of 40 marijuana plants. Under the Michigan law, caregivers can grow up to 12 plants each for up to five patients, as well as growing 12 plants for themselves if they are patients. That means the two caregivers should have been legally protected in growing up to 72 plants each, or 144 in total.

 

The apparent hole in the law that the DEA and the state police could be seeking to exploit is that the law does not directly address the issue of conjoined grows. It says only that caregivers can grow up to 12 plants for up to five patients and does not address more than one caregiver growing under the same roof. On the other hand, the law does not forbid such activities.

 

"This was an operation of the state police and the DEA," said Detroit medical marijuana activist Tim Beck. "The state police couldn’t even get a warrant from a local judge, so the DEA had to get one from a federal judge in Grand Rapids. The state police claim that they are captives of the local prosecutor, but in this case, the local prosecutor didn't cooperate with them, so they went around him to the feds."

 

"We were completely in compliance with the law," said Ryan Basore, proprietor of Capitol City Care Givers, whose grow was hit. "We had contacted the local, county, and state police, and they all gave the go ahead and said we were doing it legally. We had two different attorneys write up the leases and go through plant counts and make sure everything was correctly separated. Every caregiver was well under the limit."

 

That didn't stop the DEA, the state police, and the Tri-county Metro Narcotics Squad from behaving as if they were busting an Al Qaeda cell. Raiding agents threw smoke bombs in the building, paraded around with AK-47s, and stole the marijuana being grown by legally compliant caregivers. When asked about the Holder memo, the agents acted as if they were above the law. "Obama is not our president," Basore reported the agents saying."The people wanted change," Basore overheard another agent say as they effectively laughed in the face of their own superiors.

 

"All I can tell you is that this is an ongoing investigation in which we procured the search warrant," said Detroit DEA spokesman Special Agent Rich Isaacson. "Just because someone makes a claim that it is medical marijuana doesn't make it so."

 

When asked about the October 2009 Justice Department memo urging the DEA to quit going after medical marijuana patients and providers in states where it is legal, Isaacson appeared to agree with the memo, but then suggested Capital Caregivers was somehow outside the state law. "If it's unambiguous that they're following state law, there would be better ways for the department to spend its resources," he said.

 

"Our mission is to target large scale drug trafficking groups," Isaacson said, but clammed up when confronted with the fact that the raids had seized only 40 plants. "That number may or may not be accurate," was all he would say.

 

Basore has been a prominent figure in the state's medical marijuana movement. He is a member of various cannabis patient groups and the Michigan Association of Compassionate Care Centers. He's been available to local and state media, and as a result, he has a very high profile. That could have been why he was targeted, his supporters suggested.

 

"This raid came about because Ryan Basore was in the media for the past few weeks talking about his desire to have regulated dispensaries," said Detroit attorney Matthew Abel. "He is a very successful businessman in this industry, and I think they just decided to take him down. They do that to anyone who goes public, and that's highly retaliatory against our First Amendment rights. He was talking to the press, so they took him out. That's pretty nasty."

 

"Ryan is high-profile, he's politically active and on TV all the time, but he's also scrupulously honest," said Beck. "That operation was absolutely straight up," he said.

 

"We're very troubled by the continuing raids involving the DEA that are occurring around the country, and we've been saying this for a long time," said Kris Hermes, a spokesman for the medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access. "It is not the purview of the federal government to enforce state or local laws. If the feds believe state or local law may have been violated, they should leave those cases to the state to prosecute. Only then we will find out if there were in fact violations of state or local law, because if those cases go to federal court, prosecutors will not risk opening the door to a medical marijuana defense," he said.

 

"The DEA conducts these raids and provides very little evidence of state law violations," said Hermes. "They rarely, if ever, produce any actual physical evidence of state law violations."

 

It's not just Michigan where the DEA is acting out, said Hermes. "We've seen well over 20 DEA raids since Justice issued its memo, and while that is for sure a less aggressive posture than the Bush administration, any raids are unacceptable if they are going to undermine the implementation of a state's medical marijuana law," he said. "That has been the effect in California and Colorado, where the DEA attempts to undermine the state medical marijuana law," Hermes argued.

 

"US attorneys have received notice that there was a change in policy, and that has filtered down to DEA agents across the country in medical marijuana states," Hermes continued. "Eric Holder and the Obama administration have given pretty broad latitude to use discretion in enforcing federal marijuana laws in medical marijuana states, and it's mostly US attorneys and DEA field agents who consider their targets to be violating state or local law. The shadow of the Justice Department memo is coloring enforcement actions, and hopefully we'll see fewer raids in the future, but it's that discretion that has resulted in the continuing raids."

 

"The DEA has been all over Michigan trying to subvert this law, running around recommending that municipalities pass laws saying that any activity which is contrary to state local or federal law is also illegal," Beck noted. "That is being challenged in court by the ACLU."

 

For Basore, it's not just about picking up the pieces and starting over. "I'm thinking about suing the state of Michigan, said Basore. "I think I have an entrapment case. I would never have broken the law unless I was told it was okay to do, and some of those who told me it was okay were in on the raids."

 

And it is full speed ahead, recalcitrant state police and DEA be damned. "We haven't been charged with anything, we're legal to grow in Michigan, and our patients need their medicine," said Basore. "If they are going to rob us at gunpoint again, they're going to do it. But we'll keep doing what we're doing, we have the law on our side."

 

The feds don't even have to prosecute to have inflict severe pain, Abel said. "They clean you out, and then where are you?"

 

"There will be bankruptcies filed because of this," said Basore. "Most of our caregivers are in the their 60s, and they're not rich."

 

The DEA and reactionary state law enforcement officials are once again showing serious signs of thinking they are above the law. Someone needs to rein them in, whether through lawsuits, in the streets, or at the ballot box.

Okemos, MI

United States

Edited July 10, 2012 by MightyMightyMezz

[Dr. Bob]

Good posting Mighty, at least someone knows how to offer evidence.

 

However, this is a combined grow is it not? Is the ability of multible caregivers to grow under one roof, especially if the total plants among all caregivers is over 99, unambiguous compliance with the act? The article itself says it is not addressed?

 

So 24 friends and I rent a house. We are all caregivers, if we grow 1800 plants (72 x 25) are we in unambiguous compliance with the MMMA?

 

While I appreciate the article (which seemed to put forward the point of view that this was a legal grow), I would like to research it a bit to see what the mainstream media had to say.

 

Again, 1 patient, medical use only, in unambiguous compliance with the MMMA? Any articles about federal prosecution of such a patient? Or a caregiver with 5 patients (not part of a co-op or group grow which in itself is a little questionable under the MMMA).

 

Dr. Bob

 

PS, this was the press release issued by the dispensary itself, some research showed they were leasing space to multible caregivers. So this clearly was not a patient, in full compliance with state law, being raided by the DEA, it was a dispensary and possible large scale grow with multible caregivers. Any follow up on the result of the raid? I saw something about 40 plants from 2 of the 6 caregivers growing there, but no details on the other 4.

 

I don't think this is a really good example of the DEA raiding a patient, which is what was asked for.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[GanjaWarrior]

Good posting Mighty, at least someone knows how to offer evidence.

 

However, this is a combined grow is it not? Is the ability of multible caregivers to grow under one roof, especially if the total plants among all caregivers is over 99, unambiguous compliance with the act? The article itself says it is not addressed?

 

So 24 friends and I rent a house. We are all caregivers, if we grow 1800 plants (72 x 25) are we in unambiguous compliance with the MMMA?

 

While I appreciate the article (which seemed to put forward the point of view that this was a legal grow), I would like to research it a bit to see what the mainstream media had to say.

 

Again, 1 patient, medical use only, in unambiguous compliance with the MMMA? Any articles about federal prosecution of such a patient? Or a caregiver with 5 patients (not part of a co-op or group grow which in itself is a little questionable under the MMMA).

 

Dr. Bob

 

i keep looking thru the law...you know something else that isnt in it...ambigious. no where, not once., maybe i missed it?can you and 24 friends rent a house...can all of you list its as an address....you and 24 of your friends can have their own home if the house is big enough....yes all over Michigan do u see one building shared by multiple people,and yet thru the use of locks and doors they can even be separate addresses...."612 e grove street apt#1-24"....no where in the law does it say you can grow hydroponically, no where in the law does it say you can use non organic nutes....there's lost of stuff not in the law.

this is federal bullying of medical patients....excuse it as much as you like. I dont image you could understand anyway.

[MightyMightyMezz]

Good posting Mighty, at least someone knows how to offer evidence.

 

However, this is a combined grow is it not? Is the ability of multible caregivers to grow under one roof, especially if the total plants among all caregivers is over 99, unambiguous compliance with the act? The article itself says it is not addressed?

 

So 24 friends and I rent a house. We are all caregivers, if we grow 1800 plants (72 x 25) are we in unambiguous compliance with the MMMA?

 

While I appreciate the article (which seemed to put forward the point of view that this was a legal grow), I would like to research it a bit to see what the mainstream media had to say.

 

Again, 1 patient, medical use only, in unambiguous compliance with the MMMA? Any articles about federal prosecution of such a patient? Or a caregiver with 5 patients (not part of a co-op or group grow which in itself is a little questionable under the MMMA).

 

Dr. Bob

 

I don't see anything in the law that forbids multiple grows per location and I even highlighted the part where it says they had forty plants between two caregivers.

[ozzrokk]

I just wanted to make sure you say that correctly... raids have taken place, but no Federal convictions have followed.

 

In all fairness a raid is a raid whether there are charges or not. A RAID IS A RAID and that is NOT the same as leaving State legal MMJ patients alone.

[Dr. Bob]

i keep looking thru the law...you know something else that isnt in it...ambigious. no where, not once., maybe i missed it?can you and 24 friends rent a house...can all of you list its as an address....you and 24 of your friends can have their own home if the house is big enough....yes all over Michigan do u see one building shared by multiple people,and yet thru the use of locks and doors they can even be separate addresses...."612 e grove street apt#1-24"....no where in the law does it say you can grow hydroponically, no where in the law does it say you can use non organic nutes....there's lost of stuff not in the law.

this is federal bullying of medical patients....excuse it as much as you like. I dont image you could understand anyway.

 

So you recommend growing 1800 plants on one piece of property, just divide them up and give them different suite/apartment names? I think that is a foolish idea and many here will agree. Growing in apartments is one thing, having multible grows is another, but the total plant count in one location is the sticker. So is the association with a dispensary. This is not grandma growing 12 plants under the law to treat her glaucoma in apartment a, and uncle pete growing another 12 in apartment c, this was a large multible caregiver grow associated with a dispensary. Legal? That is up to the lawyers, unambiguous compliance with state law? You have a hard row to hoe with that one.

 

You statements about hydroponic growing not being mentioned in the law is without basis. There are no proscribed methods, just the ability to 'grow'. The comments about nutrients are equally unhelpful as they are moot for the same reason.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

I don't see anything in the law that forbids multiple grows per location and I even highlighted the part where it says they had forty plants between two caregivers.

 

I will grant you that it doesn't specifically allow or disallow multible grows, but there is a question (ambiguity) about the legality of multible grows, especially in conjunction with a dispensary. As for the 40 plants, those were from 2 of the 6 caregivers leasing space. What about the other 4? How many total plants on site? What was the outcome of the case?

 

While this is an interesting case, and I would like to know how it turned out, my comments about 25 caregivers growing 1800 plants in one location are valid. So is my criticism of THIS case being presented as evidence the DEA is raiding individuals medical following state law. There are some 'maybes' about this case when it comes to violations of the MMMA, some differences of opinion, so by definition it is not 'unambiguous compliance'.

 

I also don't consider a press release put out by the dispensary itself a really good primary source of unbiased information. All the articles I pulled up about the raid essentially repeat the press release. I don't see a police issued plant count or statement of why they felt the need to raid with armed troops or 60 vehicles. Seems like something more was afoot.

 

Dr. Bob

[Hayduke]

It is the DEA that has said over 99 plants in a location gets more attention and a separate sentencing structure... or at least that is what I recall...

[Celliach]

i keep looking thru the law...you know something else that isnt in it...ambigious. no where, not once., maybe i missed it?can you and 24 friends rent a house...can all of you list its as an address....you and 24 of your friends can have their own home if the house is big enough....yes all over Michigan do u see one building shared by multiple people,and yet thru the use of locks and doors they can even be separate addresses...."612 e grove street apt#1-24"....no where in the law does it say you can grow hydroponically, no where in the law does it say you can use non organic nutes....there's lost of stuff not in the law.

this is federal bullying of medical patients....excuse it as much as you like. I dont image you could understand anyway.

 

Well it's readily apparent that you don't understand what we mean by unambiguous compliance. They are two very big words used right after each other.

[+Malamute]

Ryan Basore was running a dispensary.

[Dr. Bob]

Well let's see, Mal gets it, Hay gets it, IT WAS A FREAKING DISPENSARY GROW Ganja. Get a clue will you? It wasn't a grandma with glaucoma growing 6 plants in her closet. It wasn't a cancer patient,. The DEA memo said they weren't interested in patients, but WERE interested in commercial operations. As for your approval of 1800 plants on one piece of property- clearly a large scale commercial operation and a fool's gambit, go right ahead and do it my friend, we'll see you in the funny papers doing a perp walk. Because you will be busted, they can see that sort of a grow from space for crying out loud. The smell from it wakes them up at home in the middle of the night and you sir, will be their new hobby.

 

Now find me an article where the aforementioned grandma was raided by the dea.

 

 

Dr. Bob

[AKenewell]

DENVER, COLORADO – Leaders of a broad coalition of national and Colorado-based advocacy organizations held a press conference today to announce the launch of the Patient Voter Project. This project is a joint effort of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Sensible Colorado, Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER), Medical Marijuana Assistance Program of America (MMAPA), Just Say Now, and others with a combined reach in Colorado of more than 40,000 online supporters.

 

The mission of the Patient Voter Project is to shine a light on the Obama administration’s behavior in the state and to keep medical marijuana patients, their families, and their hundreds of thousands of supporters around the state up-to-date about the latest hostile actions being carried out by the administration.

 

Medical marijuana advocates, providers, and patients are participating in and embracing this campaign.

 

“President Obama stated early in his campaign, and in his presidency, that he would not waste federal resources interfering with state medical marijuana programs. The recent actions of the administration are a complete betrayal of that promise,” said Morgan Fox, spokesperson for the Marijuana Policy Project. “Patients and their supporters need to know what the administration is doing that could hurt them, and Obama needs to be made aware that these crackdowns in medical marijuana states are just denying medicine to patients and putting them in danger. These people deserve elected officials that are going to support them.”

 

The members of the Patient Voter Project coalition are distributing alerts to more than 40,000 email subscribers and Facebook fans today. Recipients are also being encouraged to spread the word to other people in Colorado. In addition to these email alerts, the Patient Voter Project is in the process of distributing postcard flyers to medical marijuana centers around the state so that they will be available to patients.

 

http://www.mpp.org/m...ado-allies.html

[AKenewell]

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Earlier today, the Obama administration released its annual National Drug Control Strategy, detailing the methods and budgets planned to combat drug use for fiscal year 2013. The report stresses that more resources need to be spent on addiction treatment and prevention, and that an enforcement-centric “war on drugs” is unworkable. The report shows, however, that budget allocations for traditional law enforcement methods could increase by hundreds of millions of dollars, including domestic military operations. Government data from previous years have shown no connection between drug-arrest rates and drug-use rates.

 

While significant portions of the budget are dedicated to harm reduction and abuse prevention programs, many of the “drug war” methods that have proven ineffective over the last 40 years — particularly those used to enforce marijuana prohibition — will likely see funding increases this year. Domestic law enforcement is slated to receive $9.4 billion, a $61.4 million increase from last year. The Department of Defense Domestic Counterdrug support program will get nearly $150 million this year, a $124 million increase. Over $4.5 billion will be spent on federal incarceration of drug users and distributors. In addition, the Obama administration has requested the revival of the Youth Drug Prevention Media Program with a $20 million budget. Studies have shown that this program had the opposite of the intended effect on teens, and Congress allocated no money for the program last year.

 

"This budget is appalling. The drug czar is trying to resurrect those stupid TV ads, like the one where a teenager gets his fist stuck in his mouth," said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. "The budget intentionally undercounts the federal government's expenditures on incarcerating drug offenders, who comprise more than half of the federal prison population. And the budget dangerously proposes a massive escalation in using the military to fight drugs domestically. Congress should just ignore this budget and start from scratch. Specifically, Congress should not provide the Obama administration with any money to go after nonviolent marijuana users, growers, or distributors."

 

The drug czar’s strategy would keep control of the marijuana trade in the hands of drug cartels and illegal operators, endangering communities, and creating massive death tolls throughout Latin America. In the past year, the Global Commission on Drug Policy, current and former Latin American leaders whose countries are being ravaged by drug cartels, and tens of millions of Americans have called for a more rational approach to marijuana policy. The Obama administration has repeatedly stated that making marijuana legal is not an option.

 

 

http://www.mpp.org/m...ado-allies.html

[SFC]

Wow, every other major group sans a few here see that Obama is not living up to what he said prior to being elected. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Now, my question remains. Is a lame duck more dangerous than a first term republican?

[Dr. Bob]

Your points are well taken SFC, but these are some emotional articles that are short of facts. Involvement of the military against grandma with glaucoma? Or protection of the borders against large scale drug smuggling? Who ends up in federal prison for drugs? The little girl with leukemia or the guys making kilos of hard drugs? A teenager with a dime bag, or the guys with the van full of duffle bags bursting with Mexican pot?

 

Taking one end of the enforcement scale and applying it to medical marijuana patients following their state laws not only are two sides of the coin, they aren't even in the same zip code. Personally, I like the ads for their comic value. Sometimes making the general public laugh but at the same time bringing the issue to their minds actually is good PR for US. How did Schuette's ad do when the MMMA was up for a vote? Some of them pissed me off so much, that he thought we were that stupid, I would have voted for it even if I hadn't already been a supporter.

 

Dr. Bob

[AKenewell]

Wow, every other major group sans a few here see that Obama is not living up to what he said prior to being elected. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Now, my question remains. Is a lame duck more dangerous than a first term republican?

 

MM and his broken promises are one thing but Obama is for a national police force the size of the US military, expansion of the TSA into other forms of mass transit, and on July 27th he'll sign the Arms Trade Treaty with a group of other nations, which will have the force of law until the senate takes up the matter during its lame duck session. The ATT, under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, would have the power of a constitutional amendment and would effectively repeal the Second Amendment guaranteed right to bear arms. Among other things, it will regulate firearms to prevent their export to other countries. It's a back door route to gun control…I could go on, but all this tempered with the need for re-election? It's obvious to me who is more dangerous.

[+Malamute]

Obama has done nothing but expand gun rights since he has been president.

 

 

 

Call it the conspiracy theory that won’t die. The U.N. has been working for years to produce a final text of the Arms Trade Treaty, an agreement to regulate the global arms trade (right now, international banana and bottled water sales are more restricted than weapons sales). The negotiations have just restarted and, with them, a massive round of panic on the right about the U.N.’s nefarious plan to undermine the Second Amendment. The NRA frets that “global gun banners have markedly stepped up their attack on our Second Amendment freedoms.” Roughly 130 Congresspeople speculated that “the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to…our constitutional rights.” The Washington Times led an editorial with the screaming headline “The U.N. is coming for your guns.” There’s just one problem with this narrative: it’s totally made up:

• The Obama Administration required language in the initial 2009 General Assembly resolution acknowledging “national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory.”
  
• The State Department rules out provisions restricting constitutional rights and sovereign control of domestic weapons regulation in its ATT “Red Lines.”
  
• Since the Supreme Court has held that individual gun ownership is constitutionally protected, and international law cannot override the Constitution, the U.N. could not take American guns even if the Administration and Senate wanted it to.
  
• As Naval Postgraduate School arms expert Diana Wueger points out, the ATT isn’t even intended to regulate domestic arms: “The Arms Trade Treaty will not regulate domestic sales of firearms. Its focus is instead on the control of the legal, international trade in conventional weapons.”