AMA Finally Gets It!
- Thread starter Moldy
- Start date
Eire
Member
Yes, the election will have strong effects. But who knows, maybe the new people will have a better attitude about marijuana. This seems like one issue that actually has good reasons for support on both the right and left of American politics. So I have some hope anyway.
The giant corporations suck, true. Maybe health care reform will help. Big pharma can replace lost profits from their chemical drugs with MMJ profits. Then they'd want to make it over-the-counter to sell more.
Besides, the election might surprise us. Things have been unpredictable for several election cycles already.
The giant corporations suck, true. Maybe health care reform will help. Big pharma can replace lost profits from their chemical drugs with MMJ profits. Then they'd want to make it over-the-counter to sell more.
Besides, the election might surprise us. Things have been unpredictable for several election cycles already.
Eire
Member
There's a public Q&A forum at 7pm tomorrow in San Diego with K. Lance Rogers, the attorney who just won the first trial in SD that allowed an MMJ defense. Eugene Davidovich wrote:
"For profit or not, it did not matter on December 1, 2009. In the case of
the People vs. Jackson the jury decided "very quickly" and "conclusively"
that due to the "medical marijuana affirmative defense", they could not
convict anyone in a collective or cooperative of "selling marijuana" because
selling marijuana is not strictly forbidden in the law that allows for an
affirmative defense. "
I think that's pretty good news. The SD DA has been a real ball-busting be-atch. One of the people who testified that they belonged to this collective and the defendant was running it according to the law, was NOT allowed to testify that they were also an attorney at the SD DA office! Shee-eesh! I'm so glad they lost!
;-])
"For profit or not, it did not matter on December 1, 2009. In the case of
the People vs. Jackson the jury decided "very quickly" and "conclusively"
that due to the "medical marijuana affirmative defense", they could not
convict anyone in a collective or cooperative of "selling marijuana" because
selling marijuana is not strictly forbidden in the law that allows for an
affirmative defense. "
I think that's pretty good news. The SD DA has been a real ball-busting be-atch. One of the people who testified that they belonged to this collective and the defendant was running it according to the law, was NOT allowed to testify that they were also an attorney at the SD DA office! Shee-eesh! I'm so glad they lost!
;-])
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
Can someone WITH REAL LAW KNOWLEDGE please explain:
Does the decision in SD listed above only set firm legal precedence in the same state and something you can weakly refer to in other states defenses, or does this send a crushing blow nationally against prosecution for sales in collectives?
I don't mean to shout I just want to avoid opinions and get the truth.
Does the decision in SD listed above only set firm legal precedence in the same state and something you can weakly refer to in other states defenses, or does this send a crushing blow nationally against prosecution for sales in collectives?
I don't mean to shout I just want to avoid opinions and get the truth.
CrackerJax
New Member
It works both ways actually. It can come from either direction. If enough states defy the fed's, then a critical mass can be accomplished nationally against Congress' wishes.
Conversely, and much easier is the fed's can simply tell the states they can do whatever they think is best and let the buds fall where they may.
Conversely, and much easier is the fed's can simply tell the states they can do whatever they think is best and let the buds fall where they may.
CrackerJax
New Member
The founding fathers intended the states to figure out all of the "life" details. The Fed's were only supposed to be a skeleton of war armor and world good will, depending on the call.
This has been subverted and we now have a war/tax/rebuild juggernaut Goliath in charge.
This has been subverted and we now have a war/tax/rebuild juggernaut Goliath in charge.
ford442
Well-Known Member
i keep wondering - where are the farmers in all this - are they not aware of how much they could be earning growing good grade hemp? or possibly even pot?
i can see them not wanting to grow druuhhhgs on their land, but clearly hemp is not a drug and has been THE mainstay of farming virtually since the dawn of time.. is it WAY more profitable to grow than corn and the likes..
i can see them not wanting to grow druuhhhgs on their land, but clearly hemp is not a drug and has been THE mainstay of farming virtually since the dawn of time.. is it WAY more profitable to grow than corn and the likes..
Dirty Harry
Well-Known Member
I live in corn growing country. Corn and soybeans. With all the problems the farmers currently have with the economy, I don't think they will even look at this crop (In the USA) until all the grey areas are worked out and industrial HEMP is 100% legal.
I also wonder what the costs would be for a farmer to switch to a hemp crop. I take it the typical planters and combines won't do the job and there would be a need for heavy investment in new equipment. With a typical corn combine running $600,000 to a million dollars new, no bank would touch a loan for that unless the hemp market is locked in as legit and legal.
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
The farmers of old were mostly thrown off their land years ago when the economy favored big agriculture and banks repossessed most small farms. Now there aren't enough of them to push anything.
The fault lies with Willie Nelson because his Farm Aid concerts weren't good enough.
The fault lies with Willie Nelson because his Farm Aid concerts weren't good enough.
Eire
Member
I'm sorry dude, but there are very few family farms left in America. It's nearly all giant corporate farms. So when you talk about farmers, you are really talking about big corporate CEOs. The small farmers are sure not going to risk their farms now after they have miraculously survived the big Agra takeover of the last few decades.
As for big Agra, they work closely with the Fed, so I'm sure that has great impact on them. I would bet that they are working towards a situation where they can get into it in one or more states without pissing off the Fed who can still bust them for it.
As for big Agra, they work closely with the Fed, so I'm sure that has great impact on them. I would bet that they are working towards a situation where they can get into it in one or more states without pissing off the Fed who can still bust them for it.
ford442
Well-Known Member
ok.. good points! i meant though just that they should be arguing the point of getting hemp 100% legal for their own benefit.. wouldn't the corporate farms get tons of added profit from hemp..? from what i've heard it would be a worthwhile investment to switch over - it sells for a high price and it helps the soil rather than killing it like tobacco..
Dirty Harry
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately your right, but also fortunately I live in an area where the family farmers still exist. We have a number of "Century Farms", farms that have been family farmed for 100+ years.
But you are right, a lot of family farmers are no longer in the business due to corporate farms. The good old days of owning some land and making a living off of it (farming) are pretty much history.
P.S. I wonder if hemp can be used to make ethanol gasoline? That is the thing in my area. A lot of corn is going into the gas tank, and of course that increases the cost of feed corn for live stock farmers because the cost of corn goes up with the demand. They say switch grass can be used, but IMHO, I think hemp would be better. I think it is kind of dumb that we are using a food product to make fuel, and that increases the cost of any food for everyone.
ford442
Well-Known Member
here's some info on that subject - http://www.hempcar.org/petvshemp.shtml
Moldy
Well-Known Member
CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) — Backers of a move to legalize marijuana in Nevada filed paperwork Wednesday creating an advocacy group aimed at qualifying an initiative for the 2012 election.
Nevadans for Sensible Marijuana Laws are seeking passage of a law to tax and regulate marijuana in Nevada. Voters rejected other pot initiatives in 2002 and 2006, and a similar attempt failed to qualify for the 2004 ballot.
Nevadans sanctioned medical marijuana use with passage of a constitutional amendment in 1998 and again in 2000, but voters in 2002 defeated a proposal to allow personal possession of up to 3 ounces.
Another measure allowing adults to legally possess up to 1 ounce was rejected in 2006, but backers of that effort were encouraged by the support and pledged then to try again in Nevada.
The 2006 measure failed 56 percent to 44 percent, buoyed by strong opposition from law enforcement. It also directed the state Department of Taxation to set up procedures to license and regulate pot growers, distributors and retailers.
The Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington, D.C., advocacy group, backed both prior initiatives. It is supporting the latest effort.
Just thought I'd add this...
Nevadans for Sensible Marijuana Laws are seeking passage of a law to tax and regulate marijuana in Nevada. Voters rejected other pot initiatives in 2002 and 2006, and a similar attempt failed to qualify for the 2004 ballot.
Nevadans sanctioned medical marijuana use with passage of a constitutional amendment in 1998 and again in 2000, but voters in 2002 defeated a proposal to allow personal possession of up to 3 ounces.
Another measure allowing adults to legally possess up to 1 ounce was rejected in 2006, but backers of that effort were encouraged by the support and pledged then to try again in Nevada.
The 2006 measure failed 56 percent to 44 percent, buoyed by strong opposition from law enforcement. It also directed the state Department of Taxation to set up procedures to license and regulate pot growers, distributors and retailers.
The Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington, D.C., advocacy group, backed both prior initiatives. It is supporting the latest effort.
Just thought I'd add this...
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
Id' be amazed if it were legalized in Nevada before federal. They have some of the strictest punishments around, always have.
Plus not just law enforcement but the casino industry which is disproportionatly powerful and dead set against it because people will gamble away loosing for hours on alcohol but weed only threatens their bottom line. Every person that chooses weed over alcohol is just business lost to them.
Plus not just law enforcement but the casino industry which is disproportionatly powerful and dead set against it because people will gamble away loosing for hours on alcohol but weed only threatens their bottom line. Every person that chooses weed over alcohol is just business lost to them.
ford442
Well-Known Member
well.. what if the casinos were selling joints for chips or something? if they are the supplier they could make almost 100% profit on weed as well as booze.. charge as much as they want like disneyland.. the more stoned the better - too much booze and they puke or pass out and stop gaming, but not with weed.. and remember that Nevada already tolerates prostitution - http://www.ehow.com/how_4731453_become-a-prostitute.html
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
Yes if it were made to benefit them somehow sure. What I'm saying though is the casinos already know for a fact that people on alcohol will bet more and longer and are more likely to gamble at all in the first place than someone on weed. It's just the different nature of the drug and any test will prove that out. They'd have to make money on it more than the gambling losses and did you know that gambling profits in Vegas are bigger than the entire entertainment budget everyone in America has for movies, concerts, plays, sports, etc all combined? Over 50% of the entertainment budget nationwide it's just unimaginable but true.
Moldy
Well-Known Member
I'm a MMJ patient here in NV. Casinos tolerate cannabis now. The gamming industry began feeling a pinch in the late 1990's, the timing was right for MMJ and at that time they reduced the penalties for minor possession. Many peeps from CA were not coming over the hill in fear of arrest. I think the casinos put a lot of pressure on the lawmakers here and then they saw the light. Pot and gambling go together perfectly, I can attest to that. I don't think the casinos have considered a legal market. They should. I say coffee shops right next to the buffets if they had any creativity. It would be win-win and a new tourist boom. Weed, whores, and gambling, what else could you wish for! And in the Reno area we've got great outdoors stuff year around, Tahoe, ski resorts, golf resorts, etc.