Quote:

---

FurrowedBrow said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/06/ap/business/main20116878.shtml

Quote:

---

Feds target Calif. pot dispensaries for closure

(AP)  SAN FRANCISCO — Federal prosecutors have launched a crackdown on pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores that they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges and confiscation of their property even if they are operating legally under the state's 15-year-old medical marijuana law.

In an escalation of the ongoing conflict between the U.S. government and the nation's burgeoning medical marijuana industry, at least 16 pot shops or their landlords received letters this week stating they are violating federal drug laws, even though medical marijuana is legal in California. The state's four U.S. attorneys were scheduled Friday to announce a broader coordinated crackdown.

Their offices refused Thursday to confirm the closure orders. The Associated Press obtained copies of the letters that a prosecutor sent to at least 12 San Diego dispensaries. They state that federal law "takes precedence over state law and applies regardless of the particular uses for which a dispensary is selling and distributing marijuana."

"Under United States law, a dispensary's operations involving sales and distribution of marijuana are illegal and subject to criminal prosecution and civil enforcement actions," according to the letters signed by U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy in San Diego. "Real and personal property involved in such operations are subject to seizure by and forfeiture to the United States ... regardless of the purported purpose of the dispensary."

The move comes a little more than two months after the Obama administration toughened its stand on medical marijuana. For two years before that, federal officials had indicated they would not move aggressively against dispensaries in compliance with laws in the 16 states where pot is legal for people with doctors' recommendations.

The Department of Justice issued a policy memo to federal prosecutors in late June stating that marijuana dispensaries and licensed growers in states with medical marijuana laws could face prosecution for violating federal drug and money-laundering laws. The effort to shutter California dispensaries appeared to be the most far-reaching effort so far to put that guidance into action.

"This really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The administration is simply making good on multiple threats issued since President Obama took office," said Kevin Sabet, a former adviser to the president's drug czar and a fellow at the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Substance Abuse Solutions. "The challenge is to balance the scarcity of law enforcement resources and the sanctity of this country's medication approval process. It seems like the administration is simply making good on multiple statements made previously to appropriately strike that balance."

Greg Anton, a lawyer who represents dispensary Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana, said its landlord received an "extremely threatening" letter Wednesday invoking a federal law that imposes additional penalties for selling drugs within 1,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds.

The landlord was ordered to evict the 14-year-old pot club or risk imprisonment, plus forfeiture of the property and all the rent he has collected while the dispensary has been in business, Anton said.

Marin Alliance's founder "has been paying state and federal taxes for 14 years, and they have cashed all the checks," he said. "All I hear from Obama is whining about his budget, but he has money to do this which will actually reduce revenues."

Kris Hermes, a spokesman for the medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, said the warnings are part of what appears to be an attempt by the Obama administration to curb medical marijuana on multiple fronts and through multiple agencies. A series of dispensary raids in Montana, for example, involved agents from not only the FBI and U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, but the Internal Revenue Service and Environmental Protection Agency.

Going after property owners is not a new tactic though, Hermes said. Five years ago, the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush made similar threats to about 300 Los Angeles-area landlords who were renting space to medical marijuana outlets, some of whom were eventually evicted or closed their doors voluntarily, he said.

"It did have an impact. However, the federal government never acted on its threats, never prosecuted anybody, never even went to court to begin prosecutions," Hermes said. "By and large, they were empty threats, but they relied on them and the cost of postage to shut down as many facilities as they could without having to engage in criminal enforcement activity."

Besides the dozen dispensaries in San Diego and the one in Marin County, at least three shops in San Francisco already have received closure notices, said Dale Gieringer, director of the California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

The San Diego medical marijuana outlets put on notice were the same 12 that city officials sued last month for operating illegally, after activists there threatened to force an election on a zoning plan adopted to regulate the city's fast-growing medical marijuana industry, City Attorney Jan Goldsmith said. A judge on Wednesday ordered nine of the targeted shops to close, while the other three shut down voluntarily, Goldsmith said.

Duffy, the U.S. attorney for far Southern California, planned to issue warning letters to property owners and all of the 180 or so dispensaries that have proliferated in San Diego in the absence of compromise regulations, according to Goldsmith.

"The real power is with the federal government," he said. "They have the asset forfeiture, and that means either the federal government will own a lot of property or these landlords will evict a lot of dispensaries."

---

It's being talked about every where else I turn.  I might as well bring it up here for discussion.  Or just to make anyone else aware of this.  I was at a hydro store today and learned that the dispensaries up here are really preparing for this.  This press conference tomorrow should be interesting and deplorable. 

---

Quote:

---

FurrowedBrow said:
 

---

Quote:

---

NobodyImportant said:

Quote:

---

FurrowedBrow said:
 

---

---

That didn't even make sense. How does talking about an attorney prosecuting weed mean someone is fascist.

Man that guy just went full retard.

Quote:

---

Thebooedocksaint said:
I fucking agree, that one guy said most people want to just grow their own shit; but it isn't like they can't ALREADY DO THAT. All dispensaries are for is people that don't want to/want more than just their own crop (or people that sell to them). Personally I'm more anxious for it to go straight out legal, but that's a while off (which is a fucking shame as well).

It's an example of a vocal minority abusing a silent majority.

---

I know.

Although part of it is from stoners individually not exactly giving a good case against it. I know way to many "Fuck da pooooooooolice" stoners, and by that i mean they don't give a fuck about politics at all. And still expect shit to get better (or are convinced there's going to be a revolution (literally, like civil war style) against the feds).

Quote:

---

FurrowedBrow said:

Quote:

---

Thebooedocksaint said:
I fucking agree, that one guy said most people want to just grow their own shit; but it isn't like they can't ALREADY DO THAT. All dispensaries are for is people that don't want to/want more than just their own crop (or people that sell to them). Personally I'm more anxious for it to go straight out legal, but that's a while off (which is a fucking shame as well).

It's an example of a vocal minority abusing a silent majority.

---

actually, i just ran across this article on the shroomery.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/10/12/California-Could-Opt-Out-Controlled-Substances-Act-Ballot-Initiative

---

Quote:

---

I will submit to you that their ignorance is a rational ignorance (not reasonable, rational). Why should you educate yourself on these issues? What does that do for you? Again, you cast a tiebreaking ballot in a system that does not produce ties. To educate yourself on the issues in order to influence state politics would be irrational the same way an 80-year-old man hitting the gym because he wants to play in the NFL is irrational. Both have side-benefits, sure. You grow yourself as an individual. But democracy as a system depends on this irrationality in order to function properly.


This can perhaps work for a time, when the state is small and political platforms are correspondingly small, but the more diverse the state's powers/responsibilities and the longer the political platforms become, the more difficult it is for the citizenry to stay informed. Hence, there is a sort of irony here when we sit around criticizing others for their ignorance: how many people do you know who can even name all the departments of the federal government, let alone tell you the ins and outs of them?


Worse yet, the longer the political platforms become, the less able anyone is to vote for someone with whom they share significant commonality. When you buy food at the grocery store, you can pick the brand of burger you like, the brand of cheese, the brand of bun, and all your favorite condiments. If you don't like pickles, you don't have to buy them. You make all your food purchases a la carte. However, when you vote for a politician, you have to buy his entire political platform (and hope he even tries to deliver) whether you like it all or not. Hence, a problem of accountability that has nothing to do with ignorance. Everybody who doesn't like pickles can get burned, but they'll still have to vote for hamburgers again, because who likes hot dogs? So the politicians keep piling on more and more toppings, because that's what wins votes (or even saying one thing to the anti-picklers and another to the pro-ketchupers). Now we have a meal nobody wants to eat and a people who don't remember how to cook for themselves.

---

Quote:

---

Worse yet, the longer the political platforms become, the less able anyone is to vote for someone with whom they share significant commonality. When you buy food at the grocery store, you can pick the brand of burger you like, the brand of cheese, the brand of bun, and all your favorite condiments. If you don't like pickles, you don't have to buy them. You make all your food purchases a la carte. However, when you vote for a politician, you have to buy his entire political platform (and hope he even tries to deliver) whether you like it all or not. Hence, a problem of accountability that has nothing to do with ignorance. Everybody who doesn't like pickles can get burned, but they'll still have to vote for hamburgers again, because who likes hot dogs? So the politicians keep piling on more and more toppings, because that's what wins votes (or even saying one thing to the anti-picklers and another to the pro-ketchupers). Now we have a meal nobody wants to eat and a people who don't remember how to cook for themselves.

---