Jury finds pot dispensary isnt nonprofit, owner guilty, facing 10 years in prison
- Thread starter flaxseedoil1000
- Start date
chrishydro
Well-Known Member
That is the problem with being big, you paint a target on your head. I fear for the Harborside guys after the shows they did on tv.
Mithrandir420
Well-Known Member
Anyone who thinks they are legally growing or selling has their head up their ass. I feel for anyone who has to do time, but Sandusky was an idiot to think that San Berdoo county was going to put up with this. SB is anti MMJ and we have some real assholes in the county gov right now.
Mithrandir420
Well-Known Member
A hero to some, a martyr to others. Someone who got greedy to others. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
The question you need to ask is: Did his arrest, prosecution and incarceration change anything?
The question you need to ask is: Did his arrest, prosecution and incarceration change anything?
Probably not, because the other truly greedy players in the industry stay back in the shadows, stacking that cash, leaving him out to dry. Just one less competitor in the marketplace.
Mithrandir420
Well-Known Member
OK. And what if all the others came out of the shadows to support him? How would that change things?
Are you really asking, or are you spinning wheels?
Practically speaking, with financial support, he could have likely had a better defense, with better extrinsic force brought to bear.
And more broadly, well funded popular campaigns to remove the officials who executed these legal actions. I don't know if it happened in his case, but usually some local officials reache out to the feds to help them contravene California law. If those officials knew that they would be losing their positions of authority if they initiated federal prosecution, I doubt they'd be so eager.
And more proactively, sheriffs can be installed via well funded and executed campaigns, who carry out California law and protect growers and end user providers from federal involvement in California's affairs.
And way more proactively, popular campaigns advocating the removal of the federal prosecutors in California who are violating California law.
And way way way more proactively making this a campaign issue for Obama. It is clear some kind of deal was reached for funding, but if Barry O stood an actual chance of not carrying California... the fed attack dogs would be gone and federally subsidized joint rollers would be all over the state.
Just a few potential avenues off the top of my head.
Practically speaking, with financial support, he could have likely had a better defense, with better extrinsic force brought to bear.
And more broadly, well funded popular campaigns to remove the officials who executed these legal actions. I don't know if it happened in his case, but usually some local officials reache out to the feds to help them contravene California law. If those officials knew that they would be losing their positions of authority if they initiated federal prosecution, I doubt they'd be so eager.
And more proactively, sheriffs can be installed via well funded and executed campaigns, who carry out California law and protect growers and end user providers from federal involvement in California's affairs.
And way more proactively, popular campaigns advocating the removal of the federal prosecutors in California who are violating California law.
And way way way more proactively making this a campaign issue for Obama. It is clear some kind of deal was reached for funding, but if Barry O stood an actual chance of not carrying California... the fed attack dogs would be gone and federally subsidized joint rollers would be all over the state.
Just a few potential avenues off the top of my head.
Mithrandir420
Well-Known Member
I am really asking. You were so eager to change my words I want to give you the chance to explain yourself.
Similar threads
