The DEA and Dispensaries

Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
A few years ago the DEA used to raid random dispensaries, arresting people and taking all inventory. This happened a lot in California but it happened all over the place. A big video that was out when Romney ran was a guy in a wheelchair asking about Medical Marijuana and Romney said he would keep all laws the way they were. It is not Federally legal (Unless someone overturns the Controlled Substances Act), but there are no longer raids on Dispensaries.

I am pretty sure that if either of the remaining Republicans are elected, they will allow the DEA to start raiding dispensaries again. But it might not be a bad thing necessarily, because without the raids on Dispensaries the Marijuana community has gotten too comfortable and no longer ever tries to push for Federal legalization like they used to.

Think of Jack Herer. He literally was starting so many Marijuana grows every single day that he alone was undoing the DEA's Marijuana confiscation numbers every day. So for every grow the DEA was confiscating around the country, he was setting up a grow in someone elses house. Then anyone else that was growing Marijuana around the country for their own reasons or different organizations were then outdoing the DEA, meaning the Drug War was literally being not only lost but the other side was winning.
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
I dunno Fin. I could see Trump keeping them open and allowing broadening as the states see fit. Of course, they will have to be reorganized and put into friendly (to Trump) hands. Cruz is a hard-on tho. He could go either way. If his Constitutional commitment is as great as he said, maybe he will let the Fed government stay out of it. But he seems pretty willing to play fast and loose with the Constitution to suit his purposes as we can see from his Supreme Court position. My thought is that he will crack down on it regardless to his love of personal freedom.

I get that you dig Jack Herer for his civilly disobedient position but now there are a whole lot of people in the field. A lot of them are pretty unable to take a stand that might lead to their arrests due to family commitments. Sometimes people just want to live their lives.
 
abe supercro

abe supercro

Well-Known Member
Legal cannabis is still nascent

In some states, dispensaries are still gettin hit due to zoning or not yet having concrete distribution guidelines. ea state is at diff stages w medical/mmj and recreational mj. forfeiture laws drive a lot of the bs from 'authorities'.

Finshaggy said:
Romney said he would keep all laws the way they were. It is not Federally legal (Unless someone overturns the Controlled Substances Act), but there are no longer raids on Dispensaries.
Click to expand...
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
I dunno Fin. I could see Trump keeping them open and allowing broadening as the states see fit. Of course, they will have to be reorganized and put into friendly (to Trump) hands. Cruz is a hard-on tho. He could go either way. If his Constitutional commitment is as great as he said, maybe he will let the Fed government stay out of it. But he seems pretty willing to play fast and loose with the Constitution to suit his purposes as we can see from his Supreme Court position. My thought is that he will crack down on it regardless to his love of personal freedom.

I get that you dig Jack Herer for his civilly disobedient position but now there are a whole lot of people in the field. A lot of them are pretty unable to take a stand that might lead to their arrests due to family commitments. Sometimes people just want to live their lives.
Click to expand...
I don't think Trump would let it slide, he had a brother or something that died from Drinking or was a drunk and died young or something, and he claims he doesn't even drink wine or beer or anything except wine a church communion. So he might have an anti-drug crusader mentality that he hasn't talked about yet.

And people don't have to risk arrest. Why are there no well known organizations, apart from NORML, that support Medical and Religious Court cases?

And why is there no push for states like Texas, etc. to legalize, except again NORML. And I really don't even hear about NORML doing too much any more. But people are still going to jail.
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
Finshaggy said:
I don't think Trump would let it slide, he had a brother or something that died from Drinking or was a drunk and died young or something, and he claims he doesn't even drink wine or beer or anything except wine a church communion. So he might have an anti-drug crusader mentality that he hasn't talked about yet.

And people don't have to risk arrest. Why are there no well known organizations, apart from NORML, that support Medical and Religious Court cases?

And why is there no push for states like Texas, etc. to legalize, except again NORML. And I really don't even hear about NORML doing too much any more. But people are still going to jail.
Click to expand...
Does the ACLU do much?

From my understanding, not being Texan, most states that are not legalizing have a constituency that either does not want it or well entrenched establishment types that are in control of the state government. Just politics as usual.

I think you might be wrong about Trump. He certainly prefers money to most other pleasures. His personal feelings on vices never stopped him from soaking his casino customers. If he can make a buck at it, he will let it happen. I promise, if he is elected, he will have greater concerns.
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
Does the ACLU do much?

From my understanding, not being Texan, most states that are not legalizing have a constituency that either does not want it or well entrenched establishment types that are in control of the state government. Just politics as usual.

I think you might be wrong about Trump. He certainly prefers money to most other pleasures. His personal feelings on vices never stopped him from soaking his casino customers. If he can make a buck at it, he will let it happen. I promise, if he is elected, he will have greater concerns.
Click to expand...
The last thing I heard about the ACLU and Marijuana was that they tried to argue in either the Supreme court or a Circuit court that the judge should consider legalizing Marijuana for Religious use because Guam, a territory of the US,'s Supreme court just legalized it. but the US Supreme court or the Circuit court denied it. The best way to argue legalization in a US court room is First to challenge the Controlled Substance Act Directly with Amendment 21, which legalized Intoxicating Liquors, not fermented beverages, or alcohol, or beer and wine, but Intoxicating Liquors. Which in 1933, when the Amendment was ratified and the 18th Amendment which had started Prohibition (of Intoxicating Liquors) was passed in 1919. The laws at the time were based on the Harrison Narcotics tax act which was passed in 1915 and did not make drugs illegal, but taxed them and limited importations from foreign countries.

So it is likely that when the 21st Amendment was passed that they meant the words Intoxicating Liquors, to include: Liquid Morphine (Ex: Laudanum/Cowboy Opium), Liquid Cocaine (Coca-Cola), and other Intoxicating Liquors. This would also include Bhang, which is Marijuana mixed in to milk and filtered out the same way Marijuana butter is made.

Then also, if it is part of your Religion to use Marijuana, such as Shaivite Hindu or Rasta, or any form of Hindu if you only use it on Holi, you can argue that the Controlled Substances Act violates your Religious Rights under the Free Exercise clause, no different than the Native Americans who use Schedule 1 Peyote/Mescaline in religious ceremonies, and the Santo Diame church use Schedule 1 Ayahuasca/DMT in religious ceremonies. It would also be good to have the History of the Religion and research papers about it, for Hinduism there is a research paper on Pubmed called: Shiva Lord of Bhang, then there is also a Research paper from the late 1800s where there was a massive Marijuana study done by the British Empire in India, because they believed Marijuana was negatively effecting the health and morals of the people. They did a massive investigation including doctors, patients, holy men who used it regularly, random people who used it, hash smugglers, and all kinds of different people. And they concluded that it was completely fine.

But I'm really not so sure Trump likes what is going on. He doesn't even go to Colorado or California at all.
 
RainbowBrite86

RainbowBrite86

Well-Known Member
I come back in here every few months and make sure you're alive.

Anyway, whoever becomes president is probably not even going to think twice about marijuana. They're probably just going to let each state do it's own thing like they've been doing.

Just my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top