Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 108

Thread: Drug czar: Feds won't support legalized pot

  1. #11
    don't panic
    marduc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,301

    Re: Drug czar: Feds won't support legalized pot

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post




    Obama said he opposed these raids, and stated, no? That he would end them and leave this to the states?


    What gives?



    Do you consider this another lie of the Obama camp, or how do you explain?

    The only raids that the administration and Kerlikowske were ever talking about putting an end to were for situations where state law was in disagreement with federal law, most notably "“federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws.”

    What raids of MJ facilites that the DEA has conducted since the public stating of the non-interference policy were only done when they were able to dig up offenses that also violated state law as well as federal law. This still leaves lots of loopholes for the DEA to pounce when state law has not been strictly adhered to as well. The most common one is selling MJ for profit, since this is still illegal to do under Ca. law.

    It is still illegal to cultivate marijuana in California (unless you are a medical marijuana patient, or a primary caregiver). Especially growing MJ on federal land.

    Although Kerlikowske's statement is disappointing, it is to be expected, and there are no inconsistencies or lies in regards to previous statements at all.

    Go fish.
    Last edited by marduc; 07-24-09 at 01:26 PM.

  2. #12
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Drug czar: Feds won't support legalized pot

    Quote Originally Posted by marduc View Post
    The only raids that the administration and Kerlikowske were ever talking about putting an end to were for situations where state law was in disagreement with federal law, most notably "“federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws.”

    What raids of MJ facilites that the DEA has conducted since the public stating of the non-interference policy were only done when they were able to dig up offenses that also violated state law as well as federal law. This still leaves lots of loopholes for the DEA to pounce when state law has not been strictly adhered to as well. The most common one is selling MJ for profit, since this is still illegal to do under Ca. law.
    How can this be, when every legit dispensary pays a portion of their revenues towards the California state sales tax? I have yet to see the spot price for 1 oz of medical bud to be sold for under $300, meaning someone is raking in HUGE profits.

    Also, is it up to the state police to investigate state offenses in this case?

    It is still illegal to cultivate marijuana in California (unless you are a medical marijuana patient, or a primary caregiver). Especially growing MJ on federal land.
    The majority of the "medication" sold is illegally grown, otherwise there would be quite the supply problem. Which begs me to ask, how does the State feel about taking the sales tax proceeds on illegally grown cannabis?
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  3. #13
    don't panic
    marduc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,301

    Re: Drug czar: Feds won't support legalized pot

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    How can this be, when every legit dispensary pays a portion of their revenues towards the California state sales tax? I have yet to see the spot price for 1 oz of medical bud to be sold for under $300, meaning someone is raking in HUGE profits.

    Also, is it up to the state police to investigate state offenses in this case?



    The majority of the "medication" sold is illegally grown, otherwise there would be quite the supply problem. Which begs me to ask, how does the State feel about taking the sales tax proceeds on illegally grown cannabis?
    Well I am not a lawyer, nor am I in Ca. to attest to how it actually functions, but from what I had understood sales are loosely attributed as "donations" to offset costs for the supposedly non-profit organization

    State law was expanded in 2004 by a new law, Senate Bill 420 (Health & Safety Code 11362.7-8). Among other things, SB 420 authorized patient "cooperatives" or "collectives" to distribute or sell medical marijuana on a non-profit basis to their members. It also allows duly designated primary caregivers who consistently attend to patients' needs to charge for their labor and services in providing marijuana.
    CA NORML Medical Marijuana Information

    I might have been wrong in my interpretation.. they are allowed to sell, just not for profit, and sales are still eligible for taxation apparently. Also for dispensaries, they do not have to actually state "what" they sold, just that they had sales of "x" amount.

    Better trained legal minds than me are behind the states ability to tax it, all I know is that they figured out a way to do so.

    As far as the supply:

    the [AG's] guidelines specify that cooperatives and collectives should use only marijuana legally grown or obtained by their own members, with no purchases from outside their membership. This requirement is questionable, since there is nothing in state or federal law banning the purchase of marijuana, medical or otherwise, from any source (the law bans possession, not purchase, and possession is protected under Prop. 215). However, this problem can be avoided by including all growers and suppliers as members.
    AG's guidelines (PDF): http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/pre...guidelines.pdf

    [tangent]kinda interesting. learned something new here, it is perfectly legal to buy marijuana.. just not to take possession of it... anyhow [/tangent]

    whether the dispensaries are all following the guidelines, and the laws is up for debate.. I am sure there are huge profits to be made.. and I am sure they will argue that they are non profit and can rationalize $300 an ounce to reimburse their supplier and still be a "non-profit"

    There are plenty of grey areas and loopholes in the laws.. something that dispensaries are capitalizing on, and also something that the DEA is watching them like a hawk over to see if it can still capitalize.

    my misstatements about ways to tiptoe around the law aside.. the DEA has conducted raids since the new stance was enacted, however it has been in instances where there was a violation of state law as well (however loosely construed it was). They are not letting go that easily.. new administration with new guidelines, same DEA, if there is any wiggle room they will use it.

    Am I in agreement with the raids? hell no, am I surprised?? hell no.

    does Kerlikowske's comments on illegal cultivation have any relevance to the Obama administrations position towards state law superceding state law? nope, it is still illegal to grow MJ unless you are a med. marijuana patient, collective, or co-op.
    Last edited by marduc; 07-24-09 at 03:13 PM.

  4. #14
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Drug czar: Feds won't support legalized pot

    Quote Originally Posted by marduc View Post
    Well I am not a lawyer, nor am I in Ca. to attest to how it actually functions, but from what I had understood sales are loosely attributed as "donations" to offset costs for the supposedly non-profit organization



    CA NORML Medical Marijuana Information

    I might have been wrong in my interpretation.. they are allowed to sell, just not for profit, and sales are still eligible for taxation apparently. Also for dispensaries, they do not have to actually state "what" they sold, just that they had sales of "x" amount.

    Better trained legal minds than me are behind the states ability to tax it, all I know is that they figured out a way to do so.

    As far as the supply:



    AG's guidelines (PDF): http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/pre...guidelines.pdf

    [tangent]kinda interesting. learned something new here, it is perfectly legal to buy marijuana.. just not to take possession of it... anyhow [/tangent]

    whether the dispensaries are all following the guidelines, and the laws is up for debate.. I am sure there are huge profits to be made.. and I am sure they will argue that they are non profit and can rationalize $300 an ounce to reimburse their supplier and still be a "non-profit"

    There are plenty of grey areas and loopholes in the laws.. something that dispensaries are capitalizing on, and also something that the DEA is watching them like a hawk over to see if it can still capitalize.

    my misstatements about ways to tiptoe around the law aside.. the DEA has conducted raids since the new stance was enacted, however it has been in instances where there was a violation of state law as well (however loosely construed it was). They are not letting go that easily.. new administration with new guidelines, same DEA, if there is any wiggle room they will use it.

    Am I in agreement with the raids? hell no, am I surprised?? hell no.

    does Kerlikowske's comments on illegal cultivation have any relevance to the Obama administrations position towards state law superceding state law? nope, it is still illegal to grow MJ unless you are a med. marijuana patient, collective, or co-op.
    I appreciate such a detailed response.

    Currently, the sudden explosion in California cannabis industry stems from two main contributors: state exports and the shift to legal possession. Obtaining your medical recommendation and state medical card are about as easy as getting a regular ID. What i have been noticing, mostly in designated hot spots, is that it has shifted to a home delivery service to reduce the risk of being caught during "store hours". To do this, the clubs have to obtain quite a bit of information on their customers, and offer more and more closer nit sub circles private access to other services. Of course, this centers more towards those who are actually sick, and travel is a pain (pun intended).

    Security and technology are rather impressive in some clubs; all members are documented, with their medical status available for web verification. In the "medication" areas, cameras outnumber people. Menus are displayed via 40" LCD's, and the strains are numerous, not to mention edibles, extracts, etc.... Sales tax is collected appropriately, as are the salaries of all laborers.

    But... It is essentially legal, although there do remain several barriers. For the casual smoker, it is entirely hit or miss, as they have to see the place to know it's there. The second major barrier is the clubs reluctance to allow out of state citizens membership, even though out of state membership is technically legal. Obtaining your medical license, and the cost of cannabis is very expensive, but you are legally allowed to grow up to 25 plants (barring local ordinances).

    Here is a glimpse into how the cannabis industry is flourishing. Canna Pharmacy - Ocean Beach Cannabis Clubs - WeedMaps.com

    And yet, there are some who lobby on behalf of the street dealer who does not pay taxes....
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  5. #15
    King of Videos
    dirtpoorchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    WA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,008

    Re: Drug czar: Feds won't support legalized pot

    People who didn't see this coming need a giant stamp on there forhead that says "clueless". It obvious he is dividing accountability like none other to do what he wants.
    I'm Finding it Harder to be a Gentleman, White Stripes ~ "You think I care about me and only me. When every girl needs help climbing up a tree."

  6. #16
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,435

    Re: Drug czar: Feds won't support legalized pot

    Mr. Obama and his administration are starting to get on my last nerve.
    *insert profound statement here*

  7. #17
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

    Former Seattle, Washington police chief Gil Kerlikowske told a crowd in Fresno, California on Wednesday that marijuana is “dangerous” and “has no medical benefit,”

    Source

    Lying or incompetence?

    Institute of Medicine:

    "In conclusion, the available evidence from animal and human studies indicates that cannabinoids can have a substantial analgesic effect. (snip) Scientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC, for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation; (snip) It should be noted that THC, the primary active ingredient in marijuana, is an FDA-approved drug referred to as dronabinol and marketed as Marinol."

    American Medical Association:

    "In summary, limited controlled evidence supports the view that smoked marijuana and THC can provide symptomatic relief in patients with MS, spinal cord injury, and other causes of spasticity."

  8. #18
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

    Good bit of wisdom is to never attribute to villainy what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

    But making such a statement in public really does require an astounding amount of stupidity. Wow.

  9. #19
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,435

    Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    Former Seattle, Washington police chief Gil Kerlikowske told a crowd in Fresno, California on Wednesday that marijuana is “dangerous” and “has no medical benefit,”

    Source

    Lying or incompetence?

    Institute of Medicine:

    "In conclusion, the available evidence from animal and human studies indicates that cannabinoids can have a substantial analgesic effect. (snip) Scientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC, for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation; (snip) It should be noted that THC, the primary active ingredient in marijuana, is an FDA-approved drug referred to as dronabinol and marketed as Marinol."

    American Medical Association:

    "In summary, limited controlled evidence supports the view that smoked marijuana and THC can provide symptomatic relief in patients with MS, spinal cord injury, and other causes of spasticity."
    A little of both in all practicality. But given recent events I'll go with incompetence for.

    I just don't understand this. Do they not have QA in the White House? What the ****?
    *insert profound statement here*

  10. #20
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

    You gotta love bureaucratic job security. Either hold to the status quo, or face the ceiling
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •