Seriously these farking federal prohibition laws need to die.

Hmm, 96,000 plants?

Sounds like they need a QC inspector. Where do I apply?

Seriously, after the Supreme Court voted to destroy state laws under Raiche, the only way legalizing marijuana is going to happen is if a state government directly starts selling it, and has an armed confrontation with the feds over it.

It's called being in rebellion. At that point it's a staring contest that the feds will lose if a second state steps up. And then another.

after all, amending the Constitution is out of the question nowadays.

I hope it doesn't go that far, it's way too scary to contemplate, but I suspect it may.

cman: cman: HOPE AND CHANGE

Ok probably not my finest trolling moment. I'm taking this one back.

No, you are right. Many people voted Obama hoping that this was part of the change, even though there was no indication it was. They deserve to be trolled, and hope it breaks through the cognitive dissonance.

There was only one candidate last election that was pro-reform, and he lost the Republican primaries for other, very good reasons.

This time around, the same guy will lose again, and the only other pro-reform candidate was driven out of the Republican party. He may get a third party nomination, but that is not guaranteed, and he will lose the general election anyway.

Basically, if you are pro-reform, you are screwed at the federal level.

Get busy at the state level, because this is a bottom-up grassroots firestorm of a battle, if change is going to happen.

96,000 plants. Isn't that worth about 90 trillion in cop dollars?

Can't wait for november for the propositions in wash and co

cavehobbit: cman: cman: HOPE AND CHANGE

Ok probably not my finest trolling moment. I'm taking this one back.

No, you are right. Many people voted Obama hoping that this was part of the change, even though there was no indication it was. They deserve to be trolled, and hope it breaks through the cognitive dissonance.

There was only one candidate last election that was pro-reform, and he lost the Republican primaries for other, very good reasons.

This time around, the same guy will lose again, and the only other pro-reform candidate was driven out of the Republican party. He may get a third party nomination, but that is not guaranteed, and he will lose the general election anyway.

Basically, if you are pro-reform, you are screwed at the federal level.

Get busy at the state level, because this is a bottom-up grassroots firestorm of a battle, if change is going to happen.

Yup. I'm voting for Gary Johnson no matter what happens. Not just for this issue, but this is one of them.

/don't use pot
//knows the war on drugs only benefits law enforcement, corporations and drug lords

SnakeLee: vpb: He is Federal, and it pot is illegal under federal law. Doesn't seem very difficult to understand.

He spends half of the interview saying that he "has no problem" with cancer patients, then says

"You are asking me to say, for something that is illegal, how illegal does it have to be. I'm not comfortable answering that question," was his answer. "While I understand the question, and I understand why people want to know, I can't answer the question."

In response to whether he thinks there is a difference between a cancer patient and a grow op. So he means that they're all illegal and he does have a problem with cancer patients, even though he said explicitly that he didn't a couple sentences before.

He then says this in response to why they started cracking down: "Last year, looking at it objectively and fairly, my position probably caught some people unawares," he acknowledged. "I'm not sure why it did, but I can see why it might have." - In other words, I just started arresting everyone without warning and I understand why it caught them off guard, but I'm not sure why it caught them off guard. Then he starts whining that the governor and legislature didn't involve him personally in state law...he is just a whiny douchebag zealot.

The name of the article is "US Attorney explains his stance on pot dispensaries". What he says is disingenuous bullshiat that he contradicts non stop throughout the interview. I hope he gets colon cancer and dies from starvation.

Your average "drug warrior" has a brain of solid concrete. No amount of common sense will penetrate that dense mass.

Coincidentally, these are also the worthless sacks of shiat that keep getting us involved in wars, censorship,religion, police states, glorification of the military, government snooping, price-fixing and on top of making our lives miserable demand unearned respect from everyone else.

Commie or capitalist, doesn't matter. You find the power-hungry scum-sucking bastards everywhere.

BillCo: 96,000 plants. Isn't that worth about 90 trillion in cop dollars?

I think it's 90 "bazillion".

FTA

"If there is an explosion of marijuana use as a result of these dispensaries, which I think there is every indication that there will be, by that I mean improper use of it - people driving under the influence of marijuana, the marijuana found in schools, the marijuana being used by people who shouldn't be using it, those are not going to be federal enforcement problems, those are going to be state and local problems.

Plus all the new cases of insanity. Dont forget the insanity.

/bieng tested in a week and a half
//9 days without so far
///golf isnt the same

I like how he puts in the for profit when talking about the dispensaries, not like those big not for profit pharmaceutical companies

cman: HOPE AND CHANGE

DOPE AND CHANGE!!

/DOPE AND GANJA?

BillCo: 96,000 plants. Isn't that worth about 90 trillion in cop dollars?

Just think, if the Feds siezed that we could balance the budget, pay off the national debt, and bail out all of Europe at once. WHY IS OBAMA DOING NOTHING?!

/am I doing it right?

cman: cman: HOPE AND CHANGE

Ok probably not my finest trolling moment. I'm taking this one back.

You were trolling?

SnakeLee: That guy contradicts himself like 30 times in the article. Every elected official signed off on this in Rhode Island and then this unelected douche comes in as a zealot and can't even keep his answers straight on why.

Well, the LAW... his work instructions... contradicts itself, putting him in a difficult position.

There's one law that says it's absolutely illegal, with NO exceptions, in unambiguous terms. Then another local law says it IS legal.

It's weird to begin with. In general a law does not say what you CAN do. The basis of law in the USA is that certain things are specifically illegal, not specifically legal, because the basic principle of rights and law is that the government does NOT start from a point where your existence is unlawful and then authorizes you to do specific things with laws. Rather, you start with unlimited rights and the law proscribes certain, specific things. If the law does not cover it, the right to do it falls to the individual by default. So a law which says you CAN do something is weird, unless listed as a line-item exception under a law which says you can't do something. e.g. I don't need a law which says it's legal for me to eat breakfast any time I like.

He's in a difficult position. Legal tradition in the US is unambiguous on this: the state law cannot overrule federal authority in this matter. Been handled by SCOTUS. There's no legal basis here for arguing the contrary except for arguing "social change", which IS a fine critically important institution, but not the job a prosecutor is charged with.

Of course the real issue here is the fed still won't relent on this issue, which is pretty strange.

Zavulon: BillCo: 96,000 plants. Isn't that worth about 90 trillion in cop dollars?

Just think, if the Feds siezed that we could balance the budget, pay off the national debt, and bail out all of Europe at once. WHY IS OBAMA DOING NOTHING?!

/am I doing it right?

Close, You may need to cut back on implied cause-effect statements (even the vestiges of logic have no place in the type of comment you're aiming for), add a bit of 'born-in-Kenya' derp, maybe some 'popular summer vine fruit' or fried avian carcass references, and top it off with a photoshopped pic of some sort.

Can't we just just legalize it and get on with our lives?.

And kill the penny too, while you're at it.

How about we make everything illegal and let prosecutors decide who they like or not? Arbitrary use of power is more relatable to most people. Societies that are fair and follow rules are like something on Star Trek.

CygnusDarius: Can't we just just legalize it and get on with our lives?.

And kill the penny too, while you're at it.

It's gonna happen eventually. I'm just wondering how many people are gonna go to jail and how much pain will be metered out while fighting this off for just another few years.

The issue's not whether you want a nation where pot is legal or not. It's whether the value in putting it off for another 4, 5, 10 years is worth all this instead of just getting it over with now.

cavehobbit: Hmm, 96,000 plants?

Sounds like they need a QC inspector. Where do I apply?

Seriously, after the Supreme Court voted to destroy state laws under Raiche, the only way legalizing marijuana is going to happen is if a state government directly starts selling it, and has an armed confrontation with the feds over it.

It's called being in rebellion. At that point it's a staring contest that the feds will lose if a second state steps up. And then another.

after all, amending the Constitution is out of the question nowadays.

I hope it doesn't go that far, it's way too scary to contemplate, but I suspect it may.

No, you're missing the point.

This remains a DEMOCRACY. The Constitution NEVER said "marijuana must be illegal everwhere". Nowhere did it set in stone that ANY substance was illegal, except for the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) making alcohol illegal.

The illegal status of marijuana is maintained by the decisions of Drug Enforcement Administration and the Food and Drug Administration, an authority established by the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.

That authority can be amended by legislation at any time, by a democratically elected Legislature. Or, the appointed bureaucrats could simply reconsider its status any time they like. Which would probably happen at such time as their job security was endangered by an increasingly unpopular ban.

If such a thing were to happen, it'd probably be dropping it from Schedule I: no valid medical uses, unsafe, high potential for abuse: inherently illegal without exception to something at least available by prescription.

cavehobbit: No, you are right. Many people voted Obama hoping that this was part of the change, even though there was no indication it was. They deserve to be trolled, and hope it breaks through the cognitive dissonance.

No, bro. We're mad because he said that he'd stop the federal raids on places that were abiding by state law, and then they started right up again. In fact, in my state they went hog-wild and busted all kinds of people, not to mention just coming and tearing everything apart in their searches, taking everyone's equipment, destroying all the plants, and then never even charging anyone with anything.

Nem Wan: How about we make everything illegal and let prosecutors decide who they like or not? Arbitrary use of power is more relatable to most people. Societies that are fair and follow rules are like something on Star Trek.

Characters on Star Trek broke rules all the time. Just sayin'.

Whenever I tell people the only reason the Feds raid a dispensary is to collect assets and that why they give you a couple years to get established, they would look at me like I was crazy. It's not about drugs it's about the money.

Just cos you got the power, that don't mean you got the right

tjsands1118: Whenever I tell people the only reason the Feds raid a dispensary is to collect assets and that why they give you a couple years to get established, they would look at me like I was crazy. It's not about drugs it's about the money.

I've said it for years, if it was worth more to those in power legal, it would be. However it is worth more to them as an illicit substance, creates way more jobs and brings in more untraceable cash that way.

Why can't omnivores and other meatitarians get their beef from the food stores where no animals are harmed?

/the criminals run the government, that's why it will never be legalized
//CIA takes drug profits to fund covert missions

Obama administration not very 420 friendly... Went after Oaksterdam in California signaling that they were going to be tough on the marijuana crowd, medical or not. I doubt a Romney administration would be any softer... Bad time to be in the business...

cryinoutloud: No, bro. We're mad because he said that he'd stop the federal raids on places that were abiding by state law, and then they started right up again. In fact, in my state they went hog-wild and busted all kinds of people, not to mention just coming and tearing everything apart in their searches, taking everyone's equipment, destroying all the plants, and then never even charging anyone with anything.

DING DING DING DING DING

keep the prices high, keep the money flowin' cuz the more YOU spend, the more FEDERAL RESERVE BANKERS make.

/derpty do ooh hoo i'm the first black president of the US! what to do what ...oh... oh. Ok. Yes. yes I understand. Yes I love my wife and daughters very much. Yes. Ok. I'll do anything you tell me to do. Yes I will authorize Congress' bill into law, printing out ELEVENTEEN BAJILLYION DOLLARS TO GIVE TO THE CORPOrations who run the world
//'boy this is not what i had expected'
...

Oznog: If such a thing were to happen, it'd probably be dropping it from Schedule I: no valid medical uses, unsafe, high potential for abuse: inherently illegal without exception to something at least available by prescription.

Just remember: Cocaine is safer than Pot.

darkscout: Just remember: Cocaine is safer than Pot.

History of non-medicinal drug use in the U.S. -->



/that card's probably made of hemp paper
//ulysses s. grant was 'addicted' to coke, using it to sooth throat cancer from cigar smoking
///alcohol makes you fat and stupid; that's why it's legal!

Bad example:

Meth is safer than Pot. (Yes it's prescribed in some cases of obesity)

Sleeping Monkey: How else is the cancer patient supposed to get the joint?

came to say this. And after thinking about it, they probably want the cancer patient to purchase it from a pharmaceutical company for an astronomical price. Maybe that's where cops get their math. They base it on how much a pharmaceutical company would sell it for

NewportBarGuy: We're going to have to move cannabis to Schedule II on the controlled substances act/list thingy. That is the only way you can argue for the federal government to treat it like morphine and oxy. As long as it stays a Schedule I, the feds are going to crap all over what the states decide.

Schedule II will fix nothing:
Cocaine is in Schedule II. However, no doctor can issue a prescription for cocaine. Schedule II is different than Schedule I in that there's "some accepted medical use", archaic or not, but still "significant potential for abuse and harm".
It affords the states no additional power to regulate marjiuana, either.

It will continue to be exclusively black market trade.

What you're looking for is at LEAST Schedule IV, which includes benzodiazepines like Xanax and Valium.
Or Schedule V, which is prescription cough suppressant.

Or just remove it from Scheduling entirely. Now if it's not Scheduled,there's 2 other options: it could still be "by prescription only"... like cholesterol-lowering drugs or whatever. Or just regulated OTC, like alcohol.

Only when you remove it from Scheduling entirely does it finally leave federal control over the Controlled Substances Act and potentially go back to the states. However, the fed could still enact additional laws and regulations that would undermine state control.

Oznog: Cocaine is in Schedule II. However, no doctor can issue a prescription for cocaine.

Its medical use is as a local anesthetic for eye and nasal surgery so you'd need a prescription for that about as much as Michael Jackson needed propofol. Surgeons use alternatives to avoid the hassle but in theory medical cocaine should be cheap and plentiful because the legal source is all the cocaine that's separated from Coca-Cola manufacturing.

Wikipedia presents a brief history of attempts of Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act (new window)

cman: HOPE AND CHANGE

Both sides are against weed so vote Republican?

urban.derelict: cryinoutloud: No, bro. We're mad because he said that he'd stop the federal raids on places that were abiding by state law, and then they started right up again. In fact, in my state they went hog-wild and busted all kinds of people, not to mention just coming and tearing everything apart in their searches, taking everyone's equipment, destroying all the plants, and then never even charging anyone with anything.

DING DING DING DING DING

keep the prices high, keep the money flowin' cuz the more YOU spend, the more FEDERAL RESERVE BANKERS make.

/derpty do ooh hoo i'm the first black president of the US! what to do what ...oh... oh. Ok. Yes. yes I understand. Yes I love my wife and daughters very much. Yes. Ok. I'll do anything you tell me to do. Yes I will authorize Congress' bill into law, printing out ELEVENTEEN BAJILLYION DOLLARS TO GIVE TO THE CORPOrations who run the world
//'boy this is not what i had expected'
...[fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net image 638x502]

Herpity derpity doo! I didn't realize it was the Zionist Joo Regime that was pulling Barak Hussein 0banana's strings!11!!!

/Needs more Evil Joo nose 5/10

Oznog: It's whether the value in putting it off for another 4, 5, 10 years is worth all this instead of just getting it over with now.

Funny that you mention "value".

Value to whom?

The prison industry's $34.4 billion in revenues last year is part of total revenue growth of 9.1% from 2000 through this year, IBISWorld says. Total revenue growth from this year through 2016 is forecast at 7.5%.

(2005 - prisons & drug offenders - federal & state - drug offense population) "The United States leads the world in the number of people incarcerated in federal and state correctional facilities. There are currently more than 2 million people in American prisons or jails. Approximately one-quarter of those people held in U.S. prisons or jails have been convicted of a drug offense. The United States incarcerates more people for drug offenses than any other country. With an estimated 6.8 million Americans struggling with drug abuse or dependence, the growth of the prison population continues to be driven largely by incarceration for drug offenses."
Source:
Justice Policy Institute, "Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety," (Washington, DC: January 2008), p. 1.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08_01_REP_DrugTx_AC-PS.pdf

So...approx 25% of 34.4 billion.

Yeah, that's got some "value" to some people who would like it to stay as illegal as possible.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: As long as the private prison industry lobby exists, weed will stay illegal. Which do you think a company would prefer: Getting billions for doing what it already does, or losing 25% of your revenue stream while the government makes billions in taxes on a now-legal product?

/yeah, I know that "drug crimes" aren't exclusively weed
//doesn't make my point any less valid

Sooooooooooooo you're okay with someone having a joint, but you are out to make it impossible to get the joint........ that makes plenty of sense. The Supreme Court should have shot down these farking drug laws long ago. The feds can't keep grabbing power by saying "Oops, sorry, interstate commerce. We can totally do that." NEWSFLASH: Almost EVERYTHING goes through multiple states. It's not 1800 anymore, it doesn't take 3 weeks to GET from state to state. This is the ultimate in slippery slope bullshiat. Their (ab)use of the interstate commerce clause in such a way should have people SICKENED.

Thing is, I'm pretty sure this guy knows how stupid he sounds - but he's (probably correctly) betting that the average American won't notice. Way to go, my fellow morans.

I stopped reading after "Federal prosecutor would overlook a cancer patient with a joint, but." I bet a good percentage of feds would bust their own parents and children, sick or not, on their gung ho mission to hassle peaceful citizens who get high.

As it stands in my own state, this massive fed offensive has succeeded in shutting down a lot of storefront property, even if only temporarily (they shut down and open back up with different names within a week, or turn to delivery services, happens all the time). Patients accustomed to their medicine are suddenly finding roadblocks trying to get their medicine, and turning to growing. The people who started late last year when the raids started in my area have already harvested and are fine tuning their growing skills, I know of 2 people personally, and there must be plenty more.

One of the immediate effects the feds havent seem to have foreseen is that these the raids are creating new and more numerous sources of cannabis production. Worse, from a snitch standpoint, criminals who grow cannabis often end up with more drug than they can smoke (before the product goes undesirable). Extra product gets sold. Untaxed money starts accumulating. Even more crime is inherent when a lot of new drug dealing starts happening in an area: new dealers start "stepping on the toes" of existing dealers, and when the existing dealer population is gangmembers, people are gonna get shot. The large percentage of storefronts forced out of properties and into delivery services are also much more subject to robbery. They are mobile drug vehicles carrying several hundred to thousands of dollars worth of product with little to no protection.

Ive seen a whole lot of "crime" spring up due to these raids. And Ive seen no evidence of the feds significantly stifling cannabis production. Really its just a whole lot of hassling of peaceful people, over the smoking of a substance nowhere near as harmful as tobacco or alcohol.

/Will only be able to sell my extra drug stash this year at tremendous profit is because the feds insist on keeping it illegal