Medical Marijuana Supporters Not Donating To Obama

[cristinew]

Remember How good the ecomeny was from 2002 to 2006? when the republicans had it all,.? we just about went into a depression

[GanjaWarrior]

Obama did what he said he would, dispensaries are not completely compliant with state law.

 

make excuses for bad government and a flat out liar....thats gonna change things.

[GanjaWarrior]

Obama needs to win. Both Obama and Romney aren't worth voting for, but if Romney gets elected med mj dispensaries , patients , caregivers etc are gonna feel the heat because Romney is against med mj. I know Obama didn't stop raids on dispensaries etc but he did turn a blind eye and let DEA do what they wanted to . Romney would be instructing DEA to shut down everything to do with med mj . Obama needs our vote unfortunately.

 

yes he needs are vote...and we know he took our vote last time and turned his back on us ( some are calling it a record number of arrests) so ya hes a liar...he scammed us once...yes he needs our vote and fek him hes not getting mine. your telling me that if we elect romney it will be the same as obamma...so wake up elect 3rd party the r and the d are just looking to put us in prison.

[GanjaWarrior]

I suppose if we leave the middle east it will all go away and not get worse and drag us in anyway, ROFLMAO! Top earners pay 80-90% of taxes and the middle class would be fine if not for Obama, so follow the leader it suits you. And on Iran, if you are so foolish you do not see what they are about, then you can not be helped. War is a fact of life, and the USA is prepared, for that I am grateful.

 

Im just guessing here but are you ignorant to history of the middle east?.... you know how much we have had our nose in that region since oil was discovered? and what like a hundred freaking wars have popped off....and you think it does good for us to be in the region? who told you that, and what oil company did he work for?

[Restorium2]

Remember How good the ecomeny was from 2002 to 2006? when the republicans had it all,.? we just about went into a depression

They did that on purpose so they can take away all entitlements. They consider social security, workers comp., food stamps, welfare, health care, help for babies, help for battered housewifes, help for anyone who is in a tough position, entitlements, those are all bad. They want you to go and ask a church for help. That's what Mitt will do for you. The government will have lots of money then. The surface population will lower. I'm sure it looks real good if you are riding the success wave. Fall off that wave and you are finished. There will be no more safety nets. No more disability unless you are in the last 6 months of your life. Know what you are voting for. If that's what you want then vote for Romney. Many short sighted people will.

[CaveatLector]

The basic law cant be touched by feds, wrong again look at the deaval case just posted within state law now in the fed pen

Does anyone here know whether the Duval's were within state limits? If so, what source is being used to confirm this? The feds took the case for some reason and the press has reported that they had hundreds of plants. So maybe someone can source some information.

[Restorium2]

After what Romney has said about medical marijuana, if he wins, that will be the sign that all the republican STATE governors are looking for. They will believe they have a mandate, by the people of America, to veto all marijuana laws in their states. It will all fall like a house of cards. Legal marijuana, for any reason, including medical, will be just a memory. That's what a vote for Romney will get you.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Restorium2

[CaveatLector]

Im just guessing here but are you ignorant to history of the middle east?.... you know how much we have had our nose in that region since oil was discovered? and what like a hundred freaking wars have popped off....and you think it does good for us to be in the region? who told you that, and what oil company did he work for?

We (westerners) have had "our nose" in the middle east since before oil was discovered. We actually have less control over the middle east than in much of the 20th century. Oil was discovered there by a British company about 100 years ago. If you know your mid east history then you know that British imperialism had a firm hold on much of the mid east well before oil was discovered. The Brits have given up a lot of control over their holdings over the past 65 years. I have a copy of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Middle East Conflict that was published pre 9-11. I deliberately sought out an old copy so that pre 9-11 history wouldn't be tainted by historians wanting to use 9-11 as a centerpiece to conflict discussions. To suggest that we somehow have our nose in their affairs more than ever is to not understand the history.

[CaveatLector]

After what Romney has said about medical marijuana, if he wins, that will be the sign that all the republican STATE governors are looking for. They will believe they have a mandate, by the people of America, to veto all marijuana laws in their states. It will all fall like a house of cards. Legal marijuana, for any reason, including medical, will be just a memory. That's what a vote for Romney will get you.

Unfortunately Romney's religious ideologies will end up controlling his policy decisions. This is a man who won't touch caffeine. Sooooo, do the math.

[GanjaWarrior]

Does anyone here know whether the Duval's were within state limits? If so, what source is being used to confirm this? The feds took the case for some reason and the press has reported that they had hundreds of plants. So maybe someone can source some information.

 

ya cause we know the cops and the media dont exaggerate ....i mean its not like the cops get a bigger budget and the newspapers sell more when the sensationalize thing ....why is it with you the cops and media are always innocent until proven guilty but the pts and cg are always guilty until you see proof?

[GanjaWarrior]

We (westerners) have had "our nose" in the middle east since before oil was discovered. We actually have less control over the middle east than in much of the 20th century. Oil was discovered there by a British company about 100 years ago. If you know your mid east history then you know that British imperialism had a firm hold on much of the mid east well before oil was discovered. The Brits have given up a lot of control over their holdings over the past 65 years. I have a copy of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Middle East Conflict that was published pre 9-11. I deliberately sought out an old copy so that pre 9-11 history wouldn't be tainted by historians wanting to use 9-11 as a centerpiece to conflict discussions. To suggest that we somehow have our nose in their affairs more than ever is to not understand the history.

 

to say what you just said is to ignore reality....at what point in time did we have over a half million troops in the middle east b4 now.... with the exceptions of the wws NEVER. when did we ever have so many jets so many drones...never no way in hell can you compare out current involvement with some colonial crap a hundred years ago...its not the same. Israel didnt even exist a hundred years ago.... keep reading your missing the picture.... yes we have more involvement now than ever.... and its not helping.

[GanjaWarrior]

After what Romney has said about medical marijuana, if he wins, that will be the sign that all the republican STATE governors are looking for. They will believe they have a mandate, by the people of America, to veto all marijuana laws in their states. It will all fall like a house of cards. Legal marijuana, for any reason, including medical, will be just a memory. That's what a vote for Romney will get you.

 

fear mongering hyperbolic nonsense....just a dream and here we have the dea raping mmj programs across the nation...you know, like in real life, not just in your head.... and you suggest we vote for him again....lmao someone spiked your koolaid....

[CaveatLector]

ya cause we know the cops and the media dont exaggerate ....i mean its not like the cops get a bigger budget and the newspapers sell more when the sensationalize thing ....why is it with you the cops and media are always innocent until proven guilty but the pts and cg are always guilty until you see proof?

I get what you mean. They probably sold 10,000 more Detroit Free Press newspapers by writing hundreds of plants as opposed to 100. Especially since that story was front page news on the day it broke, right?

 

Why is it with you that you just make up facts? I am asking that claims be sourced. Simple as that. I am not saying they had hundreds of plants I am asking for an independent source that indicates they DIDN'T have hundreds of plants. How is that guilty until proven innocent? That is mighty neutral. Don't be such a lout or a shill.

 

FYI, in case you haven't heard, they WERE proven guilty.

[CaveatLector]

to say what you just said is to ignore reality....at what point in time did we have over a half million troops in the middle east b4 now.... with the exceptions of the wws NEVER. when did we ever have so many jets so many drones...never no way in hell can you compare out current involvement with some colonial crap a hundred years ago...its not the same. Israel didnt even exist a hundred years ago.... keep reading your missing the picture.... yes we have more involvement now than ever.... and its not helping.

And why are the troops there? TO CONTROL THINGS. We didn't NEED troops there last centrury because we HAD control. Get it yet? Your claim that we had 1 million troops there so we had more control is like saying the union (USA) has no control of Michigan since we don't have 1 million troops stationed here. Try and think outside the box.

[+Malamute]

to say what you just said is to ignore reality....at what point in time did we have over a half million troops in the middle east b4 now.... with the exceptions of the wws NEVER. .... yes we have more involvement now than ever.... and its not helping.

 

 

WW1 we drew lines in the sand with the Treaty of Versailles.

 

In the Persian Gulf War, the "Coalition" used about 640,000 troops.

 

So except for world war 1 and world war 2 and the Persian Gulf War and Now.... ;-)

Edited October 10, 2012 by Malamute

[nthlghts]

So what was their excuse before oil, this is nothing new for them.

 

Im just guessing here but are you ignorant to history of the middle east?.... you know how much we have had our nose in that region since oil was discovered? and what like a hundred freaking wars have popped off....and you think it does good for us to be in the region? who told you that, and what oil company did he work for?

[GanjaWarrior]

I get what you mean. They probably sold 10,000 more Detroit Free Press newspapers by writing hundreds of plants as opposed to 100. Especially since that story was front page news on the day it broke, right?

 

Why is it with you that you just make up facts? I am asking that claims be sourced. Simple as that. I am not saying they had hundreds of plants I am asking for an independent source that indicates they DIDN'T have hundreds of plants. How is that guilty until proven innocent? That is mighty neutral. Don't be such a lout or a shill.

 

FYI, in case you haven't heard, they WERE proven guilty.

 

what facts did i make up? maybe thats the source of your confusion... facts cant be made up, they wouldnt be facts. now take that home and apply it to life. oh ya i forget found guilty in a fed court...oh ya thats what got us here.... no proof they broke the state law, as the state didnt press charges... so no as it pertains to our conversation...no conviction or you wouldnt be asking for more proof...see what im saying.

 

you convict everyone without proof unless its the cops or the media or bill or government....You have no proof they broke state law, i have proof to the contrary, no charges pursued. call it what you want.... obammers raping our law and some fools say we should vote for him again.

[GanjaWarrior]

So what was their excuse before oil, this is nothing new for them.

 

what is whos excuse? um depending on who your talking to......."the jews....... the muslims"...dont you read much, watch a lil news?....yes im pretty sure that debate predates petroleum usage.

[t-pain]

theres some interesting stuff on the duval case to learn from

 

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/Opinions/lawsonpdf/11-20594%20Duval%20Order%20on%20Govts%20mot%20in%20limine.pdf

 

^ the opinion on the case.

 

Before embarking

on his venture, apparently Jeremy Duval sought and obtained advice from law enforcement officials

about compliance with laws regulating marijuana growing activity. Up to now, the Duvals have not

named a federal official who provided such advice, but they did identify a state law enforcement

official who gave them advice. That individual turned out to be deployed to a joint federal-state

drug task force and was working for the Drug Enforcement Administration.

 

interesting.

 

http://usvsduval.com/

 

the court tossed the entrapment because they asked a state official, not a federal official for advice.

 

the court also does not like defendents instructing juries about jury nullification.

 

 

The defendants also contend that much of the other evidence the government seeks to

exclude is necessary to allow the defendants to tell their story. The Court interprets that argument

as a thinly-veiled effort to offer evidence that would invite jury nullification.

 

why arent they allowed to instruct the jury on a lawful manuver?

 

The defendants are not entitled to offer evidence and testimony for the sole purpose of

inviting jury nullification. United States v. Castro, 411 F. App’x 415, 420 (2d Cir. 2011); United

States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1190 (1st Cir. 1993) (“A trial judge . . . may block defense

attorneys’ attempts to serenade a jury with the siren song of nullification . . . .”); United States v.

Scarmazzo, 554 F. Supp. 2d 1102, 1108 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (“It is appropriate to exclude evidence and

argument to the jury related to medicinal use of marijuana, introducing evidence or arguing jury

nullification.”).

 

amazing they used another marijuana trial to kill the use of jury nullification. how the hell does that work?

[CaveatLector]

 

you convict everyone without proof unless its the cops or the media or bill or government....You have no proof they broke state law, i have proof to the contrary, no charges pursued. call it what you want.... obammers raping our law and some fools say we should vote for him again.

You're a shill. How is it that the state NOT charging someone somehow becomes proof of ANYTHING? Are you new?

 

States rountinely forego prosecution of a crime when the feds step in to prosecute on federal charges. That doesn't mean there is no proof that the individual didn't violate a state law. It's called allocation of resources. See Restorium's post on that. Ever see someone charged for murder under a federal statute where the state doesn't prosecute? Yes. It happens routinely. Sometimes a state will ALSO prosecute for the murder even AFTER a federal conviction when the crime was especially heinous and the state wants some degree of control regarding the defendant's future release. But that isn't the norm.

 

So much for the state's failure to prosecute being ANY proof of ANYTHING.

[CaveatLector]

why arent they allowed to instruct the jury on a lawful manuver?

 

 

amazing they used another marijuana trial to kill the use of jury nullification. how the hell does that work?

Jury nullification isn't a lawful maneuver. Where do you come up with that? A jury is instructed that it must convict if it finds the defendant guilty. Jury nullification is when a jury member, in his/her own mind, feels the defendant is guilty but decides not to convict based on their personal feelings about a case. In other words, if I were of the mindset that women were here to be domestic servants and thus should suffer abuse when they don't do exactly as a husband says then maybe I would refuse to convict a husband charged with (and in my mind guilty of) domestic assault. That would be jury nullification. That isn't "legal." Imagine a judge allowing a jury nullification instruction to a jury. "You may find the defendant not guilty even if you think he is guilty of the crime IF you hold the firm belief that women are to be treated as less than men."

Edited October 10, 2012 by CaveatLector

[GanjaWarrior]

and the sates not gonna touch it.... because they have no cause to .... they weren't breaking the law. your notion that the state just sits around and lets people break the law and waits for the feds is absurd. do you know how they get thier funding .... its by arrest and conviction... the local drug task force doesnt make money letting someone else go after it. maybe your not aware of the competitive type game leo plays when seeking arrests....

[Restorium2]

and the sates not gonna touch it.... because they have no cause to .... they weren't breaking the law. your notion that the state just sits around and lets people break the law and waits for the feds is absurd. do you know how they get thier funding .... its by arrest and conviction... the local drug task force doesnt make money letting someone else go after it. maybe your not aware of the competitive type game leo plays when seeking arrests....

It costs astronomical amounts of tax dollars to prosecute a case. On every local drug task force you have a fed. They are tied together. Tag teaming. Hand in hand. There's no separation. The state asks the feds for help. I've seen it locally. Sheriff calls the feds. It becomes a federal case. The sheriff still confiscates what he wants. Then the feds prosecute if they want to. Or they just make a comment like, "They had a lot of plants".

[CaveatLector]

and the sates not gonna touch it.... because they have no cause to .... they weren't breaking the law. your notion that the state just sits around and lets people break the law and waits for the feds is absurd. do you know how they get thier funding .... its by arrest and conviction... the local drug task force doesnt make money letting someone else go after it. maybe your not aware of the competitive type game leo plays when seeking arrests....

Did I say anything about sitting around and letting people break the law or did I address prosecution specifically? I never said anything about the investigative portion of the case. I am speaking to the prosecution. Get it?

 

Let's simplify this so you can wrap your mind around it. Many times a defendant will have a city charge for violation of a local ordinance AND a state charge for violation of a state statute. This will occur sometimes with local traffic laws. Some municipalities have their own drunk driving laws, for example. So if you are charged with violation of a local ordinance, let's say drunk driving, AND you are charged with failing to move over for an emergency vehicle, a state charge, then you have a state AND local charge. The county prosecutor will prosecute the state charge and the city attorney will prosecute the local charge. Oftentimes one prosecutor will call the other in an effort to make a plea deal with the defedant.

 

City Attorney (CA)

County Prosecutor (CP)

 

ring ring

CP: Hello

CA: Hey CP this is CA. We have a defendant charged with drunk driving. You have him on a failure to move over charge. What say you agree to drop the failure to move over charge if he pleads straight up to the drunk driving?

CP: Right on.

CA: Okay, thanks.

 

Get it yet? It happens ALL THE TIME without any sort of expectation of "compensation" to the CP.

 

Don't be so freaking naive'.

[GanjaWarrior]

Did I say anything about sitting around and letting people break the law or did I address prosecution specifically? I never said anything about the investigative portion of the case. I am speaking to the prosecution. Get it?

 

Let's simplify this so you can wrap your mind around it. Many times a defendant will have a city charge for violation of a local ordinance AND a state charge for violation of a state statute. This will occur sometimes with local traffic laws. Some municipalities have their own drunk driving laws, for example. So if you are charged with violation of a local ordinance, let's say drunk driving, AND you are charged with failing to move over for an emergency vehicle, a state charge, then you have a state AND local charge. The county prosecutor will prosecute the state charge and the city attorney will prosecute the local charge. Oftentimes one prosecutor will call the other in an effort to make a plea deal with the defedant.

 

City Attorney (CA)

County Prosecutor (CP)

 

ring ring

CP: Hello

CA: Hey CP this is CA. We have a defendant charged with drunk driving. You have him on a failure to move over charge. What say you agree to drop the failure to move over charge if he pleads straight up to the drunk driving?

CP: Right on.

CA: Okay, thanks.

 

Get it yet? It happens ALL THE TIME without any sort of expectation of "compensation" to the CP.

 

Don't be so freaking naive'.

 

 

I stopped reading after like the 2nd line... this is a great example of where you over inflate yourself into some pompous form desperate for self worth. if you expect to convey an idea do it with out calling the person "shill" or "naive" etc, do it with out bringing up doubts and innuendos about their ability to read, recall that makes you look bad as we are online and aside from being a childish jab, its obviously unfounded.....

 

ok i read it....weak horrible example it just cant be compared.... no local drug force is giving up the seizure money right now, unless they dont have a choice... i don't know if you have noticed the dea is the only leo not getting funding cuts.... ya they dont just give up big busts with lots of land n stuff to seize. if the local boys could have raided they would have.