Comments on: California medical pot dispensary operator gets 10 years in prison

By: miasm

miasm — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:42:00 +0000

Ouroboros human centipede FTW!

By: jennix

jennix — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:32:00 +0000

True capitalism is a socially oriented philosophy where those with capital invest it in their community in an effort to promote the general welfare while also generating a profit. Modern American capitalism is much more like piracy, where you collect all the booty you can, and you bury it where no one will ever see it again.

By: IronEdithKidd

IronEdithKidd — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 13:57:00 +0000

California has to have stricter air quality laws than most other states in order for the state, on the whole, to meet the minimum standards for air quality set by the EPA under the Clean Air Act. In this case, there is no conflict between state and federal law.

By: Sasha@librtee

Sasha@librtee — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 11:17:00 +0000

Capitalism isn’t based on pure altruism. It’s based on people finding a way to prosper through helping other people. If every business, every farmer, every mom-and-pop shop were judged purely on their altruism, society would quickly fall apart and mass starvation occur.

By: teapot

teapot — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 06:31:00 +0000

This book does a pretty good job of that and has more disturbing anecdotes than you could ever want:
http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Marijuana_Is_Safer.html?id=auatLlqO_AIC&redir_esc=y

By: teapot

teapot — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 06:30:00 +0000

Fuck your shit federal government. This is no surprise – if they can screw Emery (a Canadian) then they will be able to screw a Californian.

By: Steve Nordquist

Steve Nordquist — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 04:12:00 +0000

I just didn’t get it; but maybe I just do not track CA compliances (and/or forgivenesses for Jerry Brown) as all that Great-Dane sized v. MA, FL, OH…though should. Also, no need for UL listed vaporizers for teh EtOH…not counting throwing 2 bottles of merlot through a hot frying pan, which barely flavors the food but makes the room smell appetizing. And not rank. Hmm.
So at least A. Sandusky’s friends (reckoning on that) will keep his stuff in good repair while J. Sandusky’s are turned to making amends and the Federal Administration cranks out a pardon or Order and a policy reform motion set to mob in Legends Of Congresscraft.

By: ocker3

ocker3 — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 03:02:00 +0000

I came here to say this, that State’s Rights is a big thing for many on the Right in US Politics, but not when it comes to things like this.

By: Mark Kernes

Mark Kernes — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 02:25:00 +0000

There’s one of those “We the People” petitions to get his conviction overturned: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-aaron-sanduskycase-cr12-00548-pa-man-currently-prison-facing-10-yrs-life-growing-medical/vwLY3swZ

By: dioptase

dioptase — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 01:09:00 +0000

So California auto emissions regulations should be overturned for being more restrictive? I don’t think either of us believes that.

Which was my point: there are always going to be conflicts between state and federal law. Some are ok, so are not, some are irrelevant.

Deciding which is appropriate law is more subtle that just saying “state law trumps” or “federal law trumps.” Or that one is more restrictive than another. And if one party makes a law, there’s not a simple rule that says the other has to accept it.

By: thomas vesely

thomas vesely — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:12:00 +0000

i’m looking !

By: BJones13

BJones13 — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:04:00 +0000

you shot who in the what now?

By: L_Mariachi

L_Mariachi — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:04:00 +0000

The key difference is that the Arizona immigration laws were more restrictive than the Federal laws, whereas California marijuana laws are less restrictive. The Federal government is supposed to ensure baseline standards of freedom, so that whichever state you find yourself in you’re guaranteed not to be legally enslaved or have soldiers camping out in the guest room against your will (for instance.)

By: class_enemy

class_enemy — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:59:00 +0000

If not for the fact that every single U.S. Attorney has had a Democratic boss for the last four years, this post might have a particle of relevance.

By: dspl

dspl — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:22:00 +0000

Donate to the Drug Policy Alliance to help end this nonsense!
http://www.drugpolicy.org/

By: dspl

dspl — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:18:00 +0000

We need to shine more light on the groups who profit from prohibition, and the fact that it is all about them making Money. For instance, I think most people would be shocked to learn that the Prison Industrial Complex has authored laws that put people in prison.

By: hymenopterid

hymenopterid — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:49:00 +0000

They gave him such a severe sentence because they want to make an example of him. They know they don’t have the resources to bust and prosecute every single clinic operator so their hope is that they can deter some through intimidation. Expect the punishments to become more severe as the decriminalization movement gains momentum and the cops become more overwhelmed.

By: hymenopterid

hymenopterid — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:41:00 +0000

Also, since when are medication producers expected to be altruistic? The pharmaceutical industry is all about charging as much money as they can for products that people can’t live without.

It’s a double standard. Authorities are proposing laws to ban dispensaries near schools, but with an epidemic of Oxycontin abuse, will they enact similar bans for pharmacies selling oxy? Obviously they wouldn’t because pharmaceuticals have lobbyists. The FDA knows there is far more oxy being produced than is prescribed but they seem not to care.

By: Wolf Ilandl Butler

Wolf Ilandl Butler — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:36:00 +0000

Hundreds of “pounds”?!
What a joke! There are hundreds of TONS flowing over the Mexican boarder and they can’t seem to do anything, so they apparently take out their frustration on someone with a legitimate business in the state of California. Way to go Feds- protecting people with chronic illnesses and dying of cancer from medicine to help them, even after Obama calls for a relaxed DEA stance on pot in states where it is legal.

By: thomas vesely

thomas vesely — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:20:00 +0000

there are no facts left in an argument for maintaining the status quo.
yet our leaders ignore that FACT.
their frog legs twitch and they regurgitate nonsense.
educated people, without a cogent argument ?!
only a “ruled” people can be told,
“despite my very poor justification, this is how it’s going to be !”
perhaps the marijuana issue, as a microcosmic example, is the war to concentrate on.
it is the vehicle for unwinding the “evil kings” powers.
perhaps a job for “occupy +aclu+anonymous+citizens” ?

10 years ,? shame………….inhuman

to think that a judge thought it reasonable ?
mind blowing !!

By: Funk Daddy

Funk Daddy — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:18:00 +0000

The Prohibition of alcohol lasted 13 years, was hotly contested initially and throughout its duration and is also but one of the many examples of the big dog rescinding a federal law, constitutional no less, and leaving it to the states in a perfect analogy for marijuana.

If alcohol prohibition took 13 years to defeat, imagine how bleak it looked in 1929 for the prospect of a legal alcoholic drink? Not that it stopped anyone from partaking, but a lot of people paid a price beyond a bar tab.

It should come as no surprise that the mountain of stupid that is the War on Blunts would take longer and seem even more intractable during its slow but certain erosion.

My own outlook is that when 2 or more states with shared borders legalize for recreation that the battle is won and that the fed will give in. Borders are a whole nother problem that if added to the mix make it an even bigger headache.

By: thomas vesely

thomas vesely — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:11:00 +0000

benign ?
this said, despite the very government having patents dealing with marijuana’s efficacy in many medical treatments/ future treatments.

By: Brad Zimmerman

Brad Zimmerman — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:03:00 +0000

Your analogy is missing something. Oh yes: the big dog is always right, is packing a LOT of heat, and if it gets a hair up its ass and decides to ruin the lives of other dogs, cats, whatever… it can and it will and there ain’t shit anyone else can do about it except …yip yip yip.

What the marijuana lobby needs is some big dogs on its side. Having voters and state laws is, obviously, not enough.

By: boise427

boise427 — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 20:29:00 +0000

There are a great number of kooky, completely unenforced laws on the books. The more states choose to either legalize or specifically remove cannabis laws from enforcement, the more the federal prohibition effort will be marginalized. Continued, heavy enforcement will just embolden the “It will remain illegal because I say so” attitude of the DEA.

By: disqus_gYrZCxNA7l

disqus_gYrZCxNA7l — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 20:27:00 +0000

Obama could drop it to schedule 2 and pardon all nonviolent cannabis offenders without involving congress. its a tragedy that this goes on and on and on…

By: Benjamin Palmer

Benjamin Palmer — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 20:17:00 +0000

I quite agree. I’m very angry with Obama’s about face on his initial position of when he took office of not going after medical marijuana to this present day.
Obama 2008: “I’m not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws [on medical marijuana]”
Obama Justice Department 2013: 10 years for legally (at the state level) selling medical marijuana / illegally (at the federal level) selling marijuana.

Someone* should be calling him out on this. The someone should most obviously be the Republican Party, who ostensibly are for the right of states to set their own laws. Yet they seem to care about that only when the laws the state are setting align with their social standards.

*someone more than the blog-o-nets and so forth. Someone legislature like.

By: Mordicai

Mordicai — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 20:05:00 +0000

”The Party of Lincoln…technically…”

By: bkad

bkad — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 19:58:00 +0000

This is unfortunate, but it probably will accelerate the process of forcing state and federal governments to deal with their differing positions. I might be at odds with the Boing Boing community on this, but I’d rather a bad law (federal prohibition) be enforced, and thus be a visible, impossible-to-ignore topic of discussion, than have the rule of threatened by having unenforced policy on the books.

By: jackbird

jackbird — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 19:56:00 +0000

Except that protecting the borders is explicitly delegated to the federal government in the constitution.

By: tomrigid

tomrigid — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 19:44:00 +0000

Like, like…a thousand times, like!