|
|

TEMECULA - A judge on Friday ordered a hearing on the medical pros and cons of marijuana before deciding whether to dismiss charges against a Temecula couple who contend they grew pot to treat assorted illnesses.


A Temecula couple is kicking off a cannabis acceptance project Saturday they hope will lead to the creation of a dispensary where people with cancer, AIDS and other illnesses can obtain marijuana for medicinal purposes.
|
MARIJUANA MEETING When: 2:30 p.m. Saturday. Where: Temecula Public Library, 41000 County Center Drive. Information: (909) 699-4693 or cannap215@yahoo.com |





RIVERSIDE - Medical-marijuana users rallied Wednesday outside the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration building in downtown Riverside to protest the agency's recent raids on 13 Southern California marijuana dispensaries.
|
Should the federal government raid marijuana dispensaries in California, when such facilities and the use of medical marijuana are legal under state law? Comment December 16, 2005 02:13 p.m. DEA said, "part of one of the administration's most comprehensive investigations in California history. He said the investigation is in its infancy." (let me see: FEMA is bankrupt and can't pay people who lost their homes in the flood, although they put in money for year, but we have money to dump into BS like this? Amazing!) December 16, 2005 01:15 p.m. The article clearly states the dispensaries were "dealing" to those without medical I.D. cards, therefore the federal government has the right to raid those institutions who are not following proper protocol and the law. If local law enforcement can revoke liquor licenses when a business distributes alcohol to those under age, or do not I.D. as required by law, then certainly marijuana dispensaries should be under the same scrutiny. December 16, 2005 12:30 a.m. The federal raids should be stopped once and for all. The question posed in this survey was if the feds should stop the dispensary raids, which are based on administrative discretion, not constitutional power. In fact, all the head of the DEA has to do is move marijuana to schedule III and this issue would all be settled, so they can in fact stop the raids in a moment's notice. For the record, at least two posts below contain factually incorrect information. First, it is not true that states cannot enact laws that conflict with federal law. They can, but they can't stop the feds from enforcing the federal policy. That case law was established after several States rejected the Fugitive Slave Act when the federal government was enforcing slavery. Please do a little research before posting patently false claims. Another person posted that people should lobby to change the law before they break the law. Has this person been asleep for the past 30 years? Have you never heard of NORML, MPP, ASA, or DPA? There has been constant lobbying, proposed legislation and lawsuits trying to force the feds to behave themselves. About a dozen states representing 20% or more of the US population have legalized medical marijuana, often by voter initiative. The problem is not that people are not lobbying and voting, the problem is that the federal government does not respect democracy or listen to the People, it behaves like a tyrant. December 16, 2005 00:10 a.m. Article III, Section 3.5 of the California Constitution (adopted in 1978) states that "An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power: ... (c) to declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such a statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations." Appellate court means state appellate court, of course. Various California police departments and officers, sworn to uphold the law under the state constitution, have violated their oath, and the law. If police do not respect the rule of law, set the example, then who should? It is not legal for police officers to assist the federal DEA in violation of state law. Those who do should be fired immediately. They also should be sued. December 15, 2005 09:37 p.m. Posted earlier: "yes, States are prohibited from creating laws that are against federal law. Thus the state law is void." This is absolutely false. Perhaps the poster ought to review the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution. Or at least cite the section of the constitution that supports the claim. Additionally, if the poster were correct, why hasn't the law been struck down by the California Supreme Court? It hasn't struck down the law because the law is constitutional. This isn't the SOVIET Union. I would bet the poster is in California law enforcement (they are the only ones really concerned with this subject... it's about protecting cushy jobs). In that job, they take an oath to uphold the laws and constitution of the state of California. No state employee is charged with enforcing or upholding federal law. has taken an oath. Yet they break that oath each time they work toward violating Proposition 215. But they don't care because they prefer to protect the federal funding they receive that assures they have more SUVs, helicopters, kevlar vests, etc, etc, etc. Power coveting more power. "To Serve and Protect" is a myth. They've come to "Dominate and Control." December 15, 2005 07:38 p.m. The federal raids should be stopped once and for all. The question posed in this survey was if the feds should stop the dispensary raids, which are based on administrative discretion, not constitutional power. In fact, all the head of the DEA has to do is move marijuana to schedule III and this issue would all be settled, so they can in fact stop the raids in a moment's notice. For the record, at least two posts below contain factually incorrect information. First, it is not true that states cannot enact laws that conflict with federal law. They can, but they can't stop the feds from enforcing the federal policy. That case law was established after several States rejected the Fugitive Slave Act when the federal government was enforcing slavery. Please do a little research before posting patently false claims. Another person posted that people should lobby to change the law before they break the law. Has this person been asleep for the past 30 years? have you never heard of NORML, MPP, ASA, or DPA? There has been constant lobbying, proposed legislation and lawsuits trying to force the feds to behave themselves. About a dozen states representing 20% or more of the US population have legalized medical marijuana, often by voter initiative. The problem is not that people are not lobbying and voting, the problem is that the federal government does not respect democracy or listen to the People - it behaves like a tyrant. December 15, 2005 06:50 p.m. No, they should not. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas got it right: "They cultivate their cannabis entirely in the State of California, it never crosses state lines, much less as part of a commercial transaction. Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that commerce included the mere possession of a good or some purely personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana. ... Respondents are correct that the CSA federal drug law exceeds Congress commerce power as applied to their conduct, which is purely intrastate and noncommercial." (Thomas, dissenting opinion in Gonzalez v. Raich, 6/6/2005) I agree, and consider these raids to be unconstitutional, illegal and immoral. Moreover it is a bureaucratic attack on her heart of democracy and the will of the voters, from whom the government's authority is derived. Shame, shame shame on DEA and the San Diego Supervisors. I hope they all get recalled for violating their oath to uphold the California State constitution (Amendment III, sec 3(a) and also Prop 215. When running for office, GW Bush said medical marijuana is a matter of States Rights, but his administration has attacked every state effort to resolve the question. The guy just can's help himself from lying and acting hypocritically, can he? Please contact your members of Congress to support the "States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act," and the "Steve McWilliams Truth in Trials Act." I'm not sure what the Bill numbers are. I go farther than does Thomas, who was only referring to medical marijuana that is not sold but his comments on the interstate element of "Commrece among the Several States" is pertinent to dispensaries, as well. December 15, 2005 05:53 p.m. Sure, why not? People want illegal aliens to have valid driver licences. Security at airports is looking to allow small sharp objects on planes like the ones that were used to highjack 4 different airplanes. There must be some reason they needed to raid them. But then who thinks in reason? There is an exception to everything. I may not be making sense, but it seems no one else either. December 15, 2005 05:46 p.m. Although I do not condone marijuana use, I abhor the federal government's incursion into states' prerogatives. The 10th Amendment prohibits the federal government from any activity not prescribed in the Constitution. December 15, 2005 04:37 p.m. Since federal law takes precedent over state law, does that mean the state minimum wage is void because it pays $1.60 more an hour than the federal minimum wage? I have one solution.... Impeach them all, and remove them from office. Starting with the idiot who now takes blame for faulty intelligence in Iraq. December 15, 2005 04:26 p.m. They might not be smart enough to catch Osama, but they can catch Grandma. December 15, 2005 03:47 p.m. yes, States are prohibited from creating laws that are against federal law. Thus the state law is void. December 15, 2005 01:34 p.m. Yes, the law is the law. Lobby to change the law before you violate it. December 15, 2005 11:20 a.m. To raid the only source available to secure medicinal grade cannabis, is in direct conflict with Prop. 215, and State Senate Bill 420. Both now State Health and Safety Code Law. The Local Government should NOT have a say in whether to enforce State Law or NOT! The law is to be equal, and administered equally without prejudice, bias, or animosity. Both laws dealing with medicinal cannabis are valid, and we need to just enforce the existing law. The Federal Government has no right to interefere with State Law unless State Law is found to be Unconstitutional, which they were never challenged as to their constitutionality. Leave California and the rest of the ten States that have approved medicinal cannabis alone. The Federal Government is only responsibile for Seven, (7), things, one which is to "Defend The Nation From Foreign Attack." A job they were lax on in September of 2001. Worry about another New York style 9-11, and we will handle the medicinal cannabis issue just fine. December 15, 2005 11:14 a.m. Marijuana has been used for hundreds of years for its proven medicinal value. It was widely used in the late 1800 and early 1900's both recreationally, much like liquor, as well as medicinally, especially by the upper class. The bastardization and eventual illegalization of pot was actually racially motivated - it was outlawed as a way to force Mexican immigrants, who were, at the time, the major providers of marijuana in the southern part of the US, out of the country as they were considered at that time to be taking jobs from Americans. The government then engaged is a sweeping campaign of propaganda, labeling it as a dangerous, mind-altering drug that led people to commit heinous acts (I'm sure everyone remembers "Reefer Madness" - it didn't become a cult film for no reason). The labeling of marijuana as a hard-core drug and placing it in the line with the likes of cocaine, meth, heroin and other serious - and necessarily illegal - drugs is a joke, as is the federal governemnt's stance on our voter-approved medical marijuana initiative. I take offense to the government's urging of citizens to vote and make a difference, only to then tell us that they won't recognize the will of the people if it doesn't fit in with their ideology. The legal and penal system is needlessly bogged down with pot-related offenders so much so that there is little room for real criminals in our jails and prisons. I would prefer our government concentrate on real crime, as well as the state of our southern border. It's asinine that so much effort is focused on this issue when there are so many more important problems facing this country. December 15, 2005 10:21 a.m. who cares about marijuana? just legalize and put a 21 age limit on it its no more destructive than alcohol i assure you it causes FAR fewer deaths, injuries, and general discomfort to society its just a lot easier to grow yourself and therefore nearly impossible to tax(and no i dont smoke marijuanna, i'm just not blind) sure, potheads are losers but the weed didnt turn them that way thats just one way that their loserdom manifests itself December 15, 2005 10:01 a.m. bottom line in that anything that has KILLED someone should be outlawed. When it comes to medical pot, only prohibition has killed, not the herb itself. Spend the money on schools and firemen and important stuff. December 15, 2005 09:22 a.m. Yes -- the cultivation of marijuana is illegal and is still destructive to the human mind and attitude. December 15, 2005 09:19 a.m. I feel that life isn't supposed to be pain-free. As I age, I have chronic shoulder and back problems. I do not run to a doctor for painkillers (as) they dull my senses and can create an addiction problem. People that insist they need to smoke pot for their aches and pains need rehab -- not a new law that makes it legal...Pot has ruined many a young lives by acting as a gateway drug. I see far too many young people become a drain on society because they get high all the time and end up working the system for every freebie and entitlement as well as lying and stealing to support their habits. "Medical Marijuana" is synonomous with "I hate dealing with reality" and "I'm gonna fight for my right to be a stoned loser"... December 15, 2005 09:16 a.m. I am a retired police officer. I think they should focus their resourses elsewhere. In my 30 years of experience, marijuana use is the least of our problems......Can your spell "B-O-R-D-E-R?" December 15, 2005 09:16 a.m. Absolutely not! The federal government needs to stay out of the state's business...look at our history - sound familiar? America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. -Abraham Lincoln, 16th U.S. President (1809-1865) December 15, 2005 08:58 a.m. They need to use our tax dollar paid enforcement agents and focus on the rampant drug trade coming up from Mexico and leave these people alone. These distributors are providing a necessary service for many, many ill people in the area. December 15, 2005 08:42 a.m. No!!! You would think this was 1930 with our Dragonian drug laws. December 15, 2005 08:30 a.m. NO WAY! It is, or should be perfectly legal to grow pot. It's just another right-wing lunatic fringe effort to thwart needed medical care. December 15, 2005 07:32 a.m. NO, WHAT A RIDICULOUS WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY. December 15, 2005 07:22 a.m. Does the federal government not have anything better to do than take a type of medication that has been legalized with a doctors note? If a doctor didn't think someone with a spinal injury, etc., needed it, I doubt he would write the prescription. Now tell me, if they were in these people's shoes what would they do? Maybe they need to actually do some "federal government" business and work on our borders and keep the damn illegals out, that's more of a problem than this will ever be. December 15, 2005 06:53 a.m. A waste of manpower, etc. I am in chronic pain w/a slipped disk and arthritis. I prefer to use pot instead of a heavy duty, addicting pain killer. How many of these lawmaker/enforcers use drugs and alcohol to excess legally? December 15, 2005 06:33 a.m. It's a federal law that overrides state law. California lawmakers made a futile and rebellious attempt to fight federal law. If we the people want to legalize marijuana, then we must change federal law. Or California can secede from the nation. December 15, 2005 04:11 a.m. NO. NO. NO. NO. No, but then again we are living under the "want to be dictator of the world" rule of Bush and pals, and they do what the hell they freakin' want. December 15, 2005 03:07 a.m. I believe that the federalists have no business telling us what is legal in our state. Keeping medicine from dying patients should be against the federal law. Obviously, they dont care. I guess it's just a matter of politics and money. We need to fight for our rights, before we have none. December 14, 2005 08:58 p.m. sure why not they should try it and see what happens? whats the worst case senerio more legal paper work. they will just hold the marijuana until someone comes up with a way to get it back. it might even push the issue into making it legal to smoke, or not. December 14, 2005 06:59 p.m. I don't use marijuana, but I believe that people who are very ill should be allowed to use it if it helps them live with their medical symptoms. I believe marijuana should be used like any other legal medical drug. |

