Big news coming

HTP

HTP

Active Member
worthless.
But did not think much more would have happened.

On a side note he stopped off at Oaksterdam and got a 1/8th for the road.
 
Dan Kone

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
HTP said:
worthless.
But did not think much more would have happened.

On a side note he stopped off at Oaksterdam and got a 1/8th for the road.
Click to expand...
Not entirely. The mandatory minimum for getting caught with over 99 plants just went away.
 
Dan Kone

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
angryblackman said:
Now for the spin!

We are going to start seeing alot more "...in the commission of a felony" charges "which in itself is a felony".
Click to expand...
Yeah, it was a very interesting speech. In theory it's a huge policy change. Problem being that he doesn't want to actually change any laws, simply not enforce some of them at his discretion. Meaning he can still go after who ever the hell he wants and when the next president comes to office they can go right back to business as usual.

It did seem to say he wouldn't go after the mandatory minimums for independent growers. Only going after mandatory minimums in the cases of "gangs, cartels, violent offenders, and organizations". Later in the speech he instead used the words "gangs, cartels, violent offenders, and criminal organizations". That kind of bothered me. Does a medical marijuana collective fall under his definition of an organization that he'd seek mandatory minimums for? IDK. He wasn't that specific.

Sounds like he's not going after collectives now but wants to leave the door open to do so in the future in case the winds start to blow a different direction in Washington.

Problem here is Eric Holder is one of the least trustworthy people in modern American history. When he is vague like that, can't really count on anything.
 
M

MoJobud

Active Member
I would not be surprised at all if a large number of dispensaries are funded and backed by cartels and gangs.
 
Dan Kone

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
MoJobud said:
I would not be surprised at all if a large number of dispensaries are funded and backed by cartels and gangs.
Click to expand...
Cartels? I doubt it. While dispensaries might bring in a lot of money from our perspective, that's not a significant amount of money from a drug cartel's perspective. IDK, I could be wrong. But I'm unaware of that happening anywhere. Also it's not really their style. It's easier, less risky, and lower overhead for them to do massive scale guerrilla grows than to run a dispensary.

Other mafia organizations? Yes, absolutely. Russians definitely in LA. Think some Italians too, but that's second hand info, not really sure.

Gangs? I'm sure there are. I knew of one being run by Northsiders (now shut down). Not sure if it was just being run by a few gang members running it on their own or if it was being run by northside itself. But it was pretty obvious who they were. They sold their CD's in the store and they were always decked out in Norte stuff. I know northside was running a bunch of warehouses in Oakland a few years ago, not sure where the bud was going though.

However this is a really really small number of the clubs. Most of the clubs are run by regular people. Most of the time, retarded regular people or sleazy middle aged con artists.

The thing about the raids is the Feds were not targeting clubs run by gangs, criminals, or cartels. Most of the clubs they went after were due to those clubs speaking in the media/tv or because of minor federal regulation violations. The federal regulations say things like you can't have a club within a quarter mile of a school, playground, park, daycare, etc as well as 600 feet from any residential area. That may sound reasonable on paper but in reality that's completely impractical in many areas. Try to find a commercially zoned property in San Francisco that fits that description. You can't. The only place that fits that description is maybe a couple parts of market street, but the city won't allow clubs there.

That quarter mile doesn't just mean if there is a school down the street. It's from a birds flight path. So if there is a dispensary, then a freeway, then a school on the other side of a freeway, that club would be in violation for being too close to a school.

Virtually every dispensary in SF is in federal violation. I'd guess most dispensaries are in some sort of federal violation if they looked hard enough.

And then even when dispensaries aren't in violation of federal law, sometimes they just make shit up to pretend they aren't complying. Harborside and BPC for example. Neither were in violation of any of the federal rules they claimed to be enforcing. But both were too active when it came to legalization activism so they went after them anyways.

That's the thing about this. Dispensaries run by good people will be targeted for their support of legalization, but most criminally owned dispensaries remain silent and low key, so they keep doing business.

The federal government raids have nothing to do with cartels, gangs, or crime reduction. It's all about trying to slow down the momentum of legalization on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry, prisons, and law enforcement.
 
M

Mithrandir420

Well-Known Member
There are no dispensaries NOT in violation of FEDERAL law. Just the fact that it's a dispensary violates fed law. STATE law on the other hand...

Also, at least in so cal, who gets raided is in part determined by who the city council/local leo asks the DEA to raid. One of my local places was raided an hour after I left with meds once. Freaky deaky!

Dan Kone said:
The federal government raids have nothing to do with cartels, gangs, or crime reduction. It's all about trying to slow down the momentum of legalization on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry, prisons, and law enforcement.
Click to expand...
I don't know who you are, Dan Kone. But I can tell that you are very much paying attention to what is going on out there. Moreso than most people. You are One Dank dude. :D Seriously though, thanks for good info.
 
Dan Kone

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
More news on Tuesday

http://www.sfchronicle.com/

Pot backers seek clarity on feds' marijuana policies

Joe Garofoli

Updated 10:53 pm, Thursday, September 5, 2013


Tuesday is a day that marijuana supporters have been looking forward to forever: The second-ranking official in the Justice Department will answer questions from theSenate Judiciary Committee about U.S. marijuana policy, just days after the feds said they would have a hands-off policy toward the two states - Washington and Colorado - where recreational pot recently became legal.For many, it's mind-blowing to have a discussion about the U.S. policy on marijuana - before the Senate, no less - after the previous political generation's single-minded admonition of "Just Say No" when it came to pot.
California marijuana advocates say this attitudinal sea change - coupled with supportive polls - clears the way for a 2016 ballot measure to legalize cannabis for adult use. Insiders say the Justice Department's new Aug. 29 memo offers some clarity for campaign funders and organizers who worried that the federal government was going to crack down on states where voters legalized cannabis.
Much of the infighting in California has dissipated among the activists who backed Proposition 19, the failed 2010 ballot measure that would have legalized weed for recreational use among adults who are at least 21 years old. In recent months the adversaries, who were bickering about whether or when to launch another initiative, have been meeting regularly, quietly organizing and monitoring Washington and Colorado to see what they could learn.
The 2016 election cycle is a presidential year, when more young voters typically turn out, and would offer a better hope for legalizing marijuana, they say.
"The hope is that California will be ready to end its prohibition and be ready to tax and legalize cannabis for adults," said Will Matthews, a spokesman for the Northern California branch of the ACLU, which has been at the forefront of the state's movement to legalize marijuana.
Still wary

But medical marijuana advocates, in California and 19 other states and the District of Columbia where it is legal, remain wary. They want clarity out of Tuesday's hearing- such as when and why federal authorities may try to close medical marijuana dispensaries in California, where voters approved medical cannabis in 1996.
For much of the past two years, despite several promises by President Obama not to disrupt the flow of the drug to the ill, federal prosecutors have cracked down on dispensaries, closing dozens of them across the state, including some that local governments have lauded as models.
The Aug. 29 DOJ memo, authored by Deputy Attorney General James Cole, who will be Tuesday's star witness, is a bit vague on how it will treat medicinal marijuana operations.
Cole's memo said federal authorities weren't going to be as focused on "states and local governments that have enacted laws legalizing marijuana in some form" and have "strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems."
How big a step?

"It was a step forward," said Steve DeAngelo, executive director of the Harborside Health Center, the nation's largest medical cannabis dispensary, with outlets in Oakland and San Jose. "But I don't know how much of a step forward it is."
It all depends, say DeAngelo and others, on whether the Justice Department thinks California has a "strong and effective" medical cannabis system. The memo didn't mention California or medicinal marijuana specifically. State lawmakers are grappling with how to better regulate California's medicinal outposts.
At the same time, some of the state's model dispensaries have been receiving mixed messages.
Despite being lauded earlier this year by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors with a Commendation of Service, Harborside has been feeling federal heat on several fronts. Harborside brings Oakland $1.1 million a year in tax revenues.
In July, U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag in San Francisco filed a federal court complaint alleging that dispensary, which does $22 million a year in business, violates federal law prohibiting marijuana distribution.
At the time, Haag said, "The larger the operation, the greater the likelihood that there will be abuse of the state's medical marijuana law, and marijuana in the hands of individuals who do not have a demonstrated medical need."
Cole's memo, however, states that prosecutors "should not consider size or commercial nature alone" in determining whether a dispensary violates federal guidelines on marijuana.
"All of us applaud these comments. Hooray! It's about time," said James Gray, a retiredOrange County Superior Court judge who now speaks on behalf of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a drug reform organization.
"But there is very little significance to it," Gray added, because federal prosecutors "don't have to follow it if they don't want to."
Haag's office declined to comment on the Justice Department memo.
California marijuana advocates doubt that their U.S. senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat Dianne Feinstein, will grill the DOJ official for clarity on the issue. They wish she would, because they know Feinstein has enormous bipartisan influence in the Senate.
Feinstein's opposition

But she is no friend to marijuana advocates. She opposed Prop. 19 in 2010 and Proposition 215, which legalized medicinal marijuana.
"She has an 'F' rating, from me personally," said Dale Gieringer, who leads the California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
Feinstein's opposition to Prop. 19 was key to its demise, as she called it "a jumbled legal nightmare that will make our highways, our workplaces and our communities less safe."
In written responses to questions from The Chronicle, Feinstein said she will be focused on illegal grow operations, particularly in Fresno County, at Tuesday's hearing.
"I will seek confirmation that DOJ's new guidance will not stop DEA or the Justice Department from investigating rogue medical marijuana dispensaries and illicit crop production in California," Feinstein said.
While she opposed Prop. 215, Feinstein said she supports "the right of individuals to use medical marijuana."
But as chairwoman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, she does not support "unregulated marijuana dispensaries or the legalization of marijuana."
If Feinstein were to change that position, De Angelo said, "we would see a much more rapid change in people's attitudes" toward marijuana.
Clarifying U.S. marijuana policy

Marijuana advocates have waited for years for a Senate hearing with Department of Justice officials. They have many questions, but wonder if the senators on the committee will ask them. Here are few issues they hope will be clarified:
1. Will the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Agency stop pressuring banks and financial institutions to deny services to cannabis businesses that are operating legally under state law?
2. Will the DOJ direct the DEA to stop sending threatening forfeiture letters to landlords of cannabis businesses that operate legally under state law?
3. Is the Obama administration reviewing the classification of marijuana as a so-called "Schedule I drug," which is defined as having no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse?
4. Will the administration allow security companies to do business with marijuana providers free of intervention?
5. Is the Obama administration considering an executive order or providing any other sort of assurance that, unlike its track record with medical marijuana, it's going to do what it says this time and leave alone marijuana businesses that are legal in states?

Joe Garofoli is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: [email protected]Twitter: @joegarofoli
Click to expand...
 
T

TWS

Well-Known Member
Feinstein. Enough said. She has ruined California ! Let alone taking away my rights to public land.
 
Dan Kone

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Industrial hemp likely to be legalized in Cali

http://thejointblog.com/california-assembly-votes-legalize-hemp/

[h=1]California Assembly Votes to Legalize Hemp[/h] News
September 11, 2013
by TheJointBlog





California’s full Assembly has approved Senate Bill 566, a measure to legalize industrial hemp, which has already been approved by the Senate. The proposal now heads back to the Senate for concurrence, before going to the governor for final consideration.
“Industrial hemp, which is already found in hundreds of consumer products manufactured in our state, is a perfect crop for California”, says Senator Mark Leno, the prime sponsor of the proposal, “It has great potential to revitalize family farms, create new jobs and stimulate the economy.”
The measure, which is co-authored by Republican Assemblymember Allan Monsoor, would legalize the cultivation of hemp under state law, though it taking effect is contingent on a change in federal law.
“Hemp grown right here in California would stimulate massive growth in the food, body care, textiles, building and other crucial sectors that suffer from having to import less efficient materials in lieu of this lucrative industrial crop,” says David Bronner, President of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, which has donated tens of thousands of dollars to efforts across the country to legalize cannabis.
According to recent congressional research, the U.S. imports roughly half a billion dollars in hemp from other countries, yet retains the illegality of its cultivation. The same congressional research found that the hemp market consists of over 25,000 various products.

- TheJointBlog
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top