Free Weeds ! - Page 6 - Big Big Forums

stresseater · 09-07-2009, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hesnothere

I have a feeling people in New Jersey are lying through their pipes.

So are the people in Oklahoma. Maybe they did the survey by counting raised hands in church. lol

hesnothere · 09-07-2009, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stresseater

So are the people in Oklahoma. Maybe they did the survey by counting raised hands in church. lol

That sounds about right

Jolie Rouge · 10-08-2009, 01:11 PM

Pot legalization gains momentum in California
Marcus Wohlsen, Associated Press Writer
Wed Oct 7, 9:49 pm ET

SAN FRANCISCO – Marijuana advocates are gathering signatures to get as many as three pot-legalization measures on the ballot in 2010 in California, setting up what could be a groundbreaking clash with the federal government over U.S. drug policy.

At least one poll shows voters would support lifting the pot prohibition, which would make the state of more than 38 million the first in the nation to legalize marijuana.

Such action would also send the state into a headlong conflict with the U.S. government while raising questions about how federal law enforcement could enforce its drug laws in the face of a massive government-sanctioned pot industry.

The state already has a thriving marijuana trade, thanks to a first-of-its-kind 1996 ballot measure that allowed people to smoke pot for medical purposes. But full legalization could turn medical marijuana dispensaries into all-purpose pot stores, and the open sale of joints could become commonplace on mom-and-pop liquor store counters in liberal locales like Oakland and Santa Cruz.

Under federal law, marijuana is illegal, period. After overseeing a series of raids that destroyed more than 300,000 marijuana plants in California's Sierra Nevada foothills this summer, federal drug czar Gil Kerlikowske proclaimed, "Legalization is not in the president's vocabulary, and it's not in mine."

The U.S. Supreme Court also has ruled that federal law enforcement agents have the right to crack down even on marijuana users and distributors who are in compliance with California's medical marijuana law.

But some legal scholars and policy analysts say the government will not be able to require California to help in enforcing the federal marijuana ban if the state legalizes the drug.

Without assistance from the state's legions of narcotics officers, they say, federal agents could do little to curb marijuana in California.

"Even though that federal ban is still in place and the federal government can enforce it, it doesn't mean the states have to follow suit," said Robert Mikos, a Vanderbilt University law professor who recently published a paper about the issue.

Nothing can stop federal anti-drug agents from making marijuana arrests, even if Californians legalize pot, he said. However, the U.S. government cannot pass a law requiring local and state police, sheriff's departments or state narcotics enforcers to help.

That is significant, because nearly all arrests for marijuana crimes are made at the state level. Of more than 847,000 marijuana-related arrests in 2008, for example, just over 6,300 suspects were booked by federal law enforcement, or fewer than 1 percent.

State marijuana bans have allowed the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to focus on big cases, said Rosalie Pacula, director of drug policy research at the Rand Corp.

"It's only something the feds are going to be concerned about if you're growing tons of pot," Pacula said. For anything less, she said, "they don't have the resources to waste on it."

In a typical recent prosecution, 29-year-old Luke Scarmazzo was sentenced to nearly 22 years and co-defendant Ricardo Ruiz Montes to 20 years in federal prison for drug trafficking through a medical marijuana dispensary in Modesto.

At his bond hearing, prosecutors showed a rap video in which Scarmazzo boasts about his successful marijuana business, taunts federal authorities and carries cardboard boxes filled with cash. The DEA said the pair made more than $4.5 million in marijuana sales in less than two years.

The DEA would not speculate on the effects of any decision by California to legalize pot. "Marijuana is illegal under federal law and DEA will continue to attack large-scale drug trafficking organizations at every level," spokeswoman Dawn Dearden said.

The most conservative of the three ballot measures would only legalize possession of up to one ounce of pot for personal use by adults 21 and older — an amount that already under state law can only result at most in a $100 fine.

The proposal would also allow anyone to grow a plot of marijuana up to 5 feet-by-5 feet on their private property. The size, Pacula said, seems specifically designed to keep the total number of plants grown below 100, the threshold for DEA attention.

The greatest potential for conflict with the U.S. government would likely come from the provision that would give local governments the power to decide city-by-city whether to allow pot sales.

Hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries across the state already operate openly with only modest federal interference. If recreational marijuana became legal, these businesses could operate without requiring their customers to qualify as patients.

Any business that grew bigger than the already typical storefront shops, however, would probably be too tempting a target for federal prosecution, experts said.

Even if Washington could no longer count on California to keep pot off its own streets, Congress or the Obama administration could try to coerce cooperation by withholding federal funds.

But with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement earlier this year that the Justice Department would defer to state laws on marijuana, the federal response to possible legalization remains unclear.

Doug Richardson, a spokesman for the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, said the office is in the process of re-evaluating its policies on marijuana and other drugs.

Richardson said the office under Obama was pursuing a "more comprehensive" approach than the previous administration, with emphasis on prevention and treatment as well as law enforcement.

"We're trying to base stuff on the facts, the evidence and the science," he said, "not some particular prejudice somebody brings to the table."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091008/...a_legalization

Jolie Rouge · 10-16-2009, 01:37 AM

Pa. man busted with weed stuck to forehead
Thu Oct 15, 8:33 pm ET

LEBANON, Pa. – Police in central Pennsylvania say they've nabbed a real pothead. They said an officer spotted 29-year-old Cesar Lopez inside a convenience store with a bag of marijuana stuck to his forehead. Investigators said Lopez was seen peering inside his baseball cap early Saturday morning in Lebanon, about 75 miles northwest of Philadelphia. When Lopez looked up, the officer noticed a small plastic bag appearing to contain marijuana stuck to his forehead.

Police said the officer peeled the bag off Lopez's forehead and placed him under arrest. He has been charged with drug possession. Police do not know whether Lopez has an attorney.

Authorities say the sweatband of a baseball cap is a frequent hiding place for drugs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091016/...xpY2VwYW1hbmI-

Jolie Rouge · 10-19-2009, 12:01 PM

Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy
Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writer
2 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers should not be targeted for federal prosecution in states that allow medical marijuana, prosecutors were told Monday in a new policy memo issued by the Justice Department.

Under the policy spelled out in a three-page legal memo, federal prosecutors are being told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.

The guidelines issued by the department do, however, make it clear that federal agents will go after people whose marijuana distribution goes beyond what is permitted under state law or use medical marijuana as a cover for other crimes.

The memo advises prosecutors they "should not focus federal resources in your states on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana."

The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.

"It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

By the government's count, 14 states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

California stands out among those for the widespread presence of dispensaries — businesses that sell marijuana and even advertise their services. Colorado also has several dispensaries, and Rhode Island and New Mexico are in the process of licensing providers, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, a group that promotes the decriminalization of marijuana use.

Advocates say marijuana is effective in treating chronic pain and nausea, among other ailments.

Holder said in March that he wanted federal law enforcement officials to pursue those who violate both federal and state law, but it has not been clear how that goal would be put into practice.

The memo spelling out the policy was sent Monday to federal prosecutors in the 14 states, and also to top officials at the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration.

The memo written by Deputy Attorney General David Ogden emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law.

"This is a major step forward," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. "This change in policy moves the federal government dramatically toward respecting scientific and practical reality."

At the same time, officials said, the government will still prosecute those who use medical marijuana as a cover for other illegal activity.

In particular, the memo urges prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases which involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or involvement in other crimes.

And while the policy memo describes a change in priorities away from prosecuting medical marijuana cases, it does not rule out the possibility that the federal government could still prosecute someone whose activities are allowed under state law.

The memo, officials said, is designed to give a sense of prosecutorial priorities to U.S. attorneys in the states that allow medical marijuana. It notes that pot sales in the United States are the largest source of money for violent Mexican drug cartels, but adds that federal law enforcement agencies have limited resources.

Medical marijuana advocates have been anxious to see exactly how the administration would implement candidate Barack Obama's repeated promises to change the policy in situations in which state laws allow the use of medical marijuana.

Soon after Obama took office, DEA agents raided four dispensaries in Los Angeles, prompting confusion about the government's plans.

___

On the Net:

Justice Department memo on medical marijuana: http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/192

Drug Enforcement Administration: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/

Marijuana Policy Project: http://www.mpp.org/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091019/...Vkc3RvaXNzdWVu

Jolie Rouge · 10-19-2009, 12:37 PM

Longtime readers will know that I have been very supportive of state initiatives on medical marijuana dating back to my years at the Seattle Times ... http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/19...ijuana-policy/

So, I have no general policy quarrel with this at all. Finally, an Obama policy that officially reduces the role of the federal government.

Or so it seems: http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...M0NzU0N2FkNTc=

Quote:

Federal drug agents won’t pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.

Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law…Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

The question is: Why is this “news?”

AG Eric Holder announced it back in March: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us/19holder.html?_r=1

Quote:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Wednesday outlined a shift in the enforcement of federal drug laws, saying the administration would effectively end the Bush administration’s frequent raids on distributors of medical marijuana.

Speaking with reporters, Mr. Holder provided few specifics but said the Justice Department’s enforcement policy would now be restricted to traffickers who falsely masqueraded as medical dispensaries and “use medical marijuana laws as a shield.”

In the Bush administration, federal agents raided medical marijuana distributors that violated federal statutes even if the dispensaries appeared to be complying with state laws. The raids produced a flood of complaints, particularly in California, which in 1996 became the first state to legalize marijuana sales to people with doctors’ prescriptions.

Graham Boyd, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union drug law project, said Mr. Holder’s remarks created a reasonable balance between conflicting state and federal laws and “seem to finally end the policy war over medical marijuana.” He said officials in California and the 12 other states that have authorized the use of medical marijuana had hesitated to adopt regulations to carry out their laws because of uncertainty created by the Bush administration.

Mr. Holder said the new approach was consistent with statements made by President Obama in the campaign and was based on an assessment of how to allocate scarce enforcement resources. He said dispensaries operating in accord with California law would not be a priority for the administration.

Mr. Holder’s comments appeared to be an effort to clarify the policy after some news reports last month interpreted his answer to a reporter’s question to be a flat assertion that all raids on marijuana growers would cease. Department officials said Mr. Holder had not intended to assert any policy change last month but was decidedly doing so on Wednesday.

The “clarifying” memo that will be sent out today, seven months after Holder first announced the “shift,” makes clear that the Obama administration will actually retain the same discretion the Bush administration exercises to prosecute someone whose activities are deemed legal in states that allow medical marijuana use.

Quote:

A three-page memo spelling out the policy is expected to be sent Monday to federal prosecutors in the 14 states, and also to top officials at the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration.

The memo, the officials said, emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the legal guidance before it is issued.

“This is a major step forward,” said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. “This change in policy moves the federal government dramatically toward respecting scientific and practical reality.”

At the same time, the officials said, the government will still prosecute those who use medical marijuana as a cover for other illegal activity. The memo particularly warns that some suspects may hide old-fashioned drug dealing or other crimes behind a medical marijuana business.

In particular, the memo urges prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases which involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or involvement in other crimes.

And while the policy memo describes a change in priorities away from prosecuting medical marijuana cases, it does not rule out the possibility that the federal government could still prosecute someone whose activities are allowed under state law.

In other words, they will continue Bush-era policies when they find it expedient to do so in the future — but they want praise and obeisance from the Left for paying lip service to Transformative Change now. It’s the Obama way!

***

Meanwhile, the Big Nanny feds continue their power grab over tobacco:

FDA bans flavored cigarettes

Except menthol, that is: In other words, they will continue Bush-era policies when they find it expedient to do so in the future — but they want praise and obeisance from the Left for paying lip service to Transformative Change now. It’s the Obama way!

***

Meanwhile, the Big Nanny feds continue their power grab over tobacco:

FDA bans flavored cigarettes http://www.philly.com/inquirer/healt...igarettes.html

Quote:

Tobacco companies can no longer sell candy-, spice-, or fruit-flavored cigarettes in the United States, regulators said, acting to enforce a ban signed into law in June by President Obama.

Making, selling, or shipping cigarettes, rolling papers, or filters with flavors such as clove, cinnamon, and strawberry may result in sanctions as of Tuesday, the Food and Drug Administration said in a letter to makers led by Altria Group Inc. and Philip Morris USA.

Congress gave the FDA power to regulate the $80-billion-a-year tobacco industry after a decadelong fight. The law banned most flavored cigarettes, advertising to children, and the introduction of products without scientific review. Menthol, the most popular flavored cigarette and the one preferred by blacks, was allowed to stay on the market over objections from seven former U.S. secretaries of Health and Human Services. "These flavored cigarettes are a gateway for many children and young adults to become regular smokers," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said Tuesday in a statement.

Companies that violate the ban may be fined, have products seized, or face criminal prosecution, according to the letter. The agency also is "examining options for regulating both menthol cigarettes and flavored tobacco products other than cigarettes," the FDA said.

Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in this country, killing about 443,000 people a year, including 49,000 from secondhand exposure, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Studies show that 17-year-olds are three times more likely to use flavored cigarettes than people over 25, according to the FDA. The agency is encouraging people to report any flavored cigarettes that remain on the market.

Except menthol, that is: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...s-tobacco-ban/

Quote:

Because of a loophole written into the law, the FDA banned all flavored cigarettes except menthol. The only flavor sold by Philip Morris, the FDA’s industry ally in passing legislation to allow the ban, just happens to be menthol.

Sold as a way to protect public health, the ban is more flash than substance. At the time he signed the legislation President Obama crowed, “The decades-long effort to protect our children [has] emerged victorious. … Today, change has come.” Change came, but it didn’t do much when it got here.

Menthol is the No. 1 cigarette flavor used by underaged smokers and the most popular among all smokers. A menthol ban would have had many times the impact of banning all other flavors combined.

The menthol exception makes the new regulation particularly toothless among blacks. Mentholated brands are preferred by three-quarters of black smokers. Blacks tend to be more likely to smoke and to smoke more. As a result, blacks suffer a disproportionate share of lung cancer.

Consumers should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to smoke or go hang gliding or eat fattening ice cream, but even by the standards of nanny state advocates this rule is ludicrous. There is no logical health explanation for why menthol flavored cigarettes are allowed but other flavors are banned.

However, there is an economic reason for the distinction and for Philip Morris to be a cheerleader for regulation. The more regulatory hurdles faced by potential competitors, the easier it is for large tobacco concerns to keep their markets.

59/1,877

Jolie Rouge · 10-21-2009, 12:52 AM

A federal misstep with medical marijuana?
By the Monitor's Editorial Board
Tue Oct 20, 5:00 am ET

The federal government has limited resources to fight drugs, and funds should not be wasted on prosecuting users and providers of medical marijuana who comply with state laws, the Obama administration said this week.

While this argument may indeed seem a sensible prioritizing of federal effort and dollars, the White House and the public should realize it comes with a cost.

That cost is Washington's tacit approval of state-sanctioned medical marijuana, which the drug's proponents will take as a green light to push even harder for their ultimate goal: full legalization of marijuana use and distribution.

Backers would like to see the buying and selling of pot regulated and taxed much like alcohol and tobacco. Their patient and well-funded route to this goal is through the states, with one avenue being state legalization of medical marijuana.

Since 1996, 13 states have allowed such use – in defiance of a federal statute that outlaws marijuana as a controlled substance. Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration does not approve of marijuana as safe or effective for any medicinal use, and the drug has never gone through the FDA's rigorous approval process. Yet several more states are considering medical marijuana laws at the urging of pro-pot and patients-rights groups.

Their stated reason is compassion. They argue that marijuana alleviates suffering for certain illnesses. No one wants to deny compassion for the sick, but Americans need to be aware of the larger context in this debate.

To begin with, state medical marijuana laws have opened the door to distribution beyond those who are ill. California shines glaringly as Exhibit A – just like the green neon signs that advertise so many of its medical marijuana dispensaries.

The Golden State was the first to legalize marijuana for medical purposes and its law is notoriously loose. All it takes to buy pot is a doctor's permission – and some doctors are willing to fill prescriptions on the thinnest of pretenses. With hundreds of marijuana storefronts in Los Angeles, the city put a moratorium on new dispensaries in 2007. A Superior Court judge ruled this week that an extension of the moratorium is invalid, a move that is likely to spur the opening of even more pot shops.

Other states have looked aghast at California's experience. They've tried to fashion stricter laws. For example, the Minnesota legislature this year amended a medical marijuana bill so that it applied only to terminally ill patients.

Yet Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty wisely vetoed the bill in May. He said he shared law enforcement concerns about expanded drug use. (Consider the problems with controlling wider use of prescribed painkillers, for instance). He also noted the lack of federal regulation.

The federal regulation question gets at another fundamental issue – the safe use of marijuana as a medicine.

The FDA is not alone in its refusal to sanctify marijuana for medical purposes. Neither does the American Medical Association approve of it – though it has encouraged its study. Doctors hesitate to approve a medicine that is smoked. And questions linger about dosage, purity, and unpredictability.

Generally, marijuana is not nearly as harmless as its proponents make it out to be. While pot cannot directly kill its user the way that alcohol or, say, an overdose of heroin can, heavy use can lead to dependence. About 1 in 10 people who have ever used marijuana become dependent at some time, according to Kevin Sabet, in the 2006 book, "Pot Politics." Mr. Sabet, a staunch opponent of legalizing marijuana, is now a drug policy adviser to the president.

Heavy use can also lead to serious mental-health problems, especially in young people. Even casual use distorts perception, reduces motor skills, and affects alertness – a hazard in driving and other activities.

These concerns should cause the public to stop and rethink its growing support for legal use of marijuana (44 percent, according to an October Gallup poll, up from 34 percent in 2003).

Thankfully, the Obama administration does not support the legalization of marijuana. And this week's Justice Department directive, which formalized a decision taken last March, by no means lets dispensaries off the hook. The feds will still go after misuse of state medical marijuana laws – prosecuting, for instance, providers that serve minors, launder money, or illegally possess firearms.

"We will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal," Attorney General Eric Holder said.

All well and good. The problem is, the line between legal and illegal regarding marijuana is fading year by year. The pro-pot groups would rub it out altogether. For the sake of a clear-thinking and healthy America, that must not be allowed to happen.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20091020...m/emarijuana_1

Jolie Rouge · 11-17-2009, 02:15 PM

Colo. medical pot suppliers will have to pay taxes
1 hr 1 min ago

DENVER – Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter plans to direct medical marijuana dispensaries to start paying sales tax.

Ritter's move comes after Colorado Attorney John Suthers concluded in an opinion issued Monday that medical marijuana is considered personal property that can be taxed and shouldn't be treated like prescription drugs, which are tax exempt.

Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer says the administration will immediately tell dispensaries to get retail licenses and start paying sales tax.

Colorado lawmakers estimate the state could collect up to $15 million a year on the sales.

The decision comes just as Denver moves to impose sales tax on medical marijuana. Denver plans to notify dispensaries that it will start collecting municipal sales tax starting in December.

___

Information from: The Denver Post, http://www.denverpost.com

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091117/...ical_marijuana