Comments on: Stop the pot shops! http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/08/06/stop-the-pot-shops/ news and views from uc berkeley Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:11:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: terri http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/08/06/stop-the-pot-shops/#comment-22132 terri Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:53:31 +0000 http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/08/06/stop-the-pot-shops/#comment-22132 If you're in favor of the federal government's involvement...I work for an organization MAPS, which recently won a landmark lawsuit against the DEA regarding medical marijuana. The lawsuit seeks to get a license granted to Lyle Craker, a professor in the Department of Plant, Soil & Insect Sciences at U Mass Amherst, to grow marijuana for FDA IND (Investigational New Drug) trials to determine whether or not it has medicinal value. There is one more step in the approval process – we need the DEA to accept the recommendation by their own Administrative Law Judge to grant the license. To put pressure on the DEA, Reps. John Olver (D-MA) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) are co-sponsoring a Congressional Sign-On Letter urging the DEA to accept the Recommended Ruling. Please visit www.maps.org to see how you can help. If you’re in favor of the federal government’s involvement…I work for an organization MAPS, which recently won a landmark lawsuit against the DEA regarding medical marijuana. The lawsuit seeks to get a license granted to Lyle Craker, a professor in the Department of Plant, Soil & Insect Sciences at U Mass Amherst, to grow marijuana for FDA IND (Investigational New Drug) trials to determine whether or not it has medicinal value. There is one more step in the approval process – we need the DEA to accept the recommendation by their own Administrative Law Judge to grant the license. To put pressure on the DEA, Reps. John Olver (D-MA) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) are co-sponsoring a Congressional Sign-On Letter urging the DEA to accept the Recommended Ruling. Please visit http://www.maps.org to see how you can help.

]]> By: Christopher Page http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/08/06/stop-the-pot-shops/#comment-22127 Christopher Page Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:13:40 +0000 http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/08/06/stop-the-pot-shops/#comment-22127 From what I have read, the organization had its bank accounts frozen and its LA branches shut down. Since the Berkeley branch of the organization uses the same bank accounts, it lost access to the money. The Berkeley part would still have its inventory and can negotiate deals with its supplier(s) until it can become solvent again. I think the shop on Telegraph you are thinking of is different from the one mentioned in the article with the frozen assets. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-medpot26jul26,1,2528678.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is a <em>Los Angeles Times</em> article about the LA busts in question. I have not followed the individual laws closely, but this is how I understand it: The use of marijuana for medical purposes is outlawed on the federal level. Some states including California have passed laws that allow its use for medical reasons. People who use pot for medical reasons in California get a doctor’s recommendation and go to a dispensary that will only sell to people with this doctor verified paperwork. The result is local and state law enforcement will often leave the dispensaries alone unless they cause a disturbance to the community. Since marijuana use of any kind is outlawed by federal law, federal law enforcement can come in at any time and bust the shops by enforcing federal law. Any other relevant information or corrections from people would be appreciated. From what I have read, the organization had its bank accounts frozen and its LA branches shut down. Since the Berkeley branch of the organization uses the same bank accounts, it lost access to the money. The Berkeley part would still have its inventory and can negotiate deals with its supplier(s) until it can become solvent again. I think the shop on Telegraph you are thinking of is different from the one mentioned in the article with the frozen assets.

Here is a Los Angeles Times article about the LA busts in question.

I have not followed the individual laws closely, but this is how I understand it:

The use of marijuana for medical purposes is outlawed on the federal level. Some states including California have passed laws that allow its use for medical reasons.

People who use pot for medical reasons in California get a doctor’s recommendation and go to a dispensary that will only sell to people with this doctor verified paperwork.

The result is local and state law enforcement will often leave the dispensaries alone unless they cause a disturbance to the community. Since marijuana use of any kind is outlawed by federal law, federal law enforcement can come in at any time and bust the shops by enforcing federal law.

Any other relevant information or corrections from people would be appreciated.

]]> By: megans http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/08/06/stop-the-pot-shops/#comment-22125 megans Tue, 07 Aug 2007 20:58:51 +0000 http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/08/06/stop-the-pot-shops/#comment-22125 Frozen assets doesn't mean they stop operations right? Because there is a dispensary on my street and I see people in front of it every day. What exactly were the federal laws that were in contraditcion with the state ones? (just curious) Frozen assets doesn’t mean they stop operations right? Because there is a dispensary on my street and I see people in front of it every day. What exactly were the federal laws that were in contraditcion with the state ones? (just curious)

]]> By: amaris http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/08/06/stop-the-pot-shops/#comment-22122 amaris Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:27:59 +0000 http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/08/06/stop-the-pot-shops/#comment-22122 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-outcasts7aug07,1,4793716.story?coll=la-headlines-nation actually click this one instead. then you don't have to register. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-outcasts7aug07,1,4793716.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

actually click this one instead. then you don’t have to register.

]]> By: amaris http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/08/06/stop-the-pot-shops/#comment-22121 amaris Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:26:07 +0000 http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/08/06/stop-the-pot-shops/#comment-22121 check out this article: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-outcasts7aug07,1,4793716.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=2&cset=true yay james. =) check out this article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-outcasts7aug07,1,4793716.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=2&cset=true

yay james. =)

]]> By: Beetle http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/08/06/stop-the-pot-shops/#comment-22115 Beetle Tue, 07 Aug 2007 01:33:06 +0000 http://www.californiapatriot.org/blog/2007/08/06/stop-the-pot-shops/#comment-22115 As a matter of physics, when conflicting authorities claim the same authority, the entity which has the most power gets it. As a matter of law, the City of Berkeley has no constitutional power, but the State of California does. The federal government claims authority on the matter through the magical commerce clause, which allows it to regulate interstate commerce, and also anything that affects interstate commerce, like intrastate commerce, stuff that isn't commerce but done by people who engage in commerce, and anything else it feels like. (Remember, supporting states rights means you support racism.) The court system has upheld this approach, so technically this kind of behavior is constitutional. As a matter of physics, when conflicting authorities claim the same authority, the entity which has the most power gets it.

As a matter of law, the City of Berkeley has no constitutional power, but the State of California does. The federal government claims authority on the matter through the magical commerce clause, which allows it to regulate interstate commerce, and also anything that affects interstate commerce, like intrastate commerce, stuff that isn’t commerce but done by people who engage in commerce, and anything else it feels like. (Remember, supporting states rights means you support racism.) The court system has upheld this approach, so technically this kind of behavior is constitutional.

]]>