DEA Raids Washington MJ dispensaries

[mtnhack]

I know maybe half (maybe more) will disagree with me on this, but fuck the DEA (http://now.msn.com/medical-marijuana-dispensaries-raided-in-washington-where-pot-is-legal).

Feds raid medical marijuana dispensaries in Wash. — where pot is legal13 hrs ago
Although Washington was one of the states that legalized marijuana (http://now.msn.com/marijuana-is-now-legal-in-washington-and-people-lit-up-at-midnight-to-celebrate-in-seattle) in 2012, it remains illegal under federal law. On Wednesday, federal agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration raided several medical marijuana dispensaries in the region around Seattle. The DEA didn't reveal why it raided the "marijuana storefronts," or how many it raided. Casey Lee, an employee of one of the dispensaries in Olympia, said agents with guns drawn seized $2,500 worth of marijuana intended for cancer patients and described the incident as "humiliating." He claims a DEA agent told him, "Things are going to be hell for you." [Source (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/24/19664590-feds-raid-medical-marijuana-dispensaries-in-washington-state-where-possession-is-legal?lite)]

[blacklabel]

I know maybe half (maybe more) will disagree with me on this, but fuck the DEA (http://now.msn.com/medical-marijuana-dispensaries-raided-in-washington-where-pot-is-legal).

I concur.

[roberth]

States rights aside, it's still federally illegal. DEA is welcome here too

Until the states re-assert their 10th amendment rights federal law will take precedence over state law.

[wax_job]

+1 for what OP said.

[Great-Kazoo]

What they do not confiscate / seize under federal law. The IRS will seize under Ill Gotten Gains. I read this shit where CO politicians are "working with banks" to make sure with pot being "legal" in CO the banks will allow MMJ stores to open accounts. Which BTW, they did not do when it was medicinal MJ business complaining about bank refusal to open accounts.
IF the DEA does not make "visits" to CO store fronts you can bet the farm, the fix is in with Hick, the dem legislature and The Obama Administration for much darker things, pertaining to gun laws.

[BigDee]

What they do not confiscate / seize under federal law. The IRS will seize under Ill Gotten Gains. I read this shit where CO politicians are "working with banks" to make sure with pot being "legal" in CO the banks will allow MMJ stores to open accounts. Which BTW, they did not do when it was medicinal MJ business complaining about bank refusal to open accounts.
IF the DEA does not make "visits" to CO store fronts you can bet the farm, the fix is in with Hick, the dem legislature and The Obama Administration for much darker things, pertaining to gun laws.

Hick didn't want Marijuana legal and he still doesn't want Marijuana legal despite the fact that the majority of Colorado voters want it legal. He signed the bill because he knew if he didn't it would mean death to his party and he wouldn't dare do anything that would be bad for his party which is exactly why he signed the gun control bills his party signed into law despite the fact that he knew they would not work. Politics is an ugly business and Hick has gotten pretty damn good at being a politician.

With that being said.... There's a good possibility these pot shops could have been a front for a sex trafficking business or they could have been pushing cartel weed or.... I really don't know. What I do know is that we need to watch and wait before jumping to conclusions on this one.

[Great-Kazoo]

Hick didn't want Marijuana legal and he still doesn't want Marijuana legal despite the fact that the majority of Colorado voters want it legal. He signed the bill because he knew if he didn't it would mean death to his party and he wouldn't dare do anything that would be bad for his party which is exactly why he signed the gun control bills his party signed into law despite the fact that he knew they would not work. Politics is an ugly business and Hick has gotten pretty damn good at being a politician.

With that being said.... There's a good possibility these pot shops could have been a front for a sex trafficking business or they could have been pushing cartel weed or.... I really don't know. What I do know is that we need to watch and wait before jumping to conclusions on this one.


I'm just kicking back. The most important thing for CO will be the timing of any DEA visits, if at all. Anything before 2014 mid terms and the D's are finished. Or as you mentioned, they could use the old. Store front used for XXX business

[BPTactical]

States rights aside, it's still federally illegal. DEA is welcome here too

Until the states re-assert their 10th amendment rights federal law will take precedence over state law.

And we have the $10,000 answer.

Very good Robert, you get a cookie.

[Gman]

States rights aside, it's still federally illegal. DEA is welcome here too

Until the states re-assert their 10th amendment rights federal law will take precedence over state law.
Which is precisely why I didn't vote for legalization. I knew it would turn into a political morass and get bounced from one court to another ad nauseum.

[GilpinGuy]

The most important thing for CO will be the timing of any DEA visits, if at all. Anything before 2014 mid terms and the D's are finished.

Ding ding ding! This. No way Fuxstain Obama would authorize any raids here...too much to lose politically. We are still "purple" here. Buy it while you can.

[asmo]

I concur.

I'm with you

[mtnhack]

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-drug-czar-we-will-go-after-marijuana-distributors-wash-and-colo-1

I think the raids and seizures have been their intent all along. They will continue to limit our freedoms and remove rights where ever they can, and allowing pot legalization to move forward doesn't fit into that plan. Notice in this article how they talk out both sides of their mouth.

[strm_trpr]

The interesting uninteded consiquence of liberals supporting MJ is that it sets the ground for conservative nulification of federal laws that are over reaching. This will be intersting to see what happens. I am all for states rights. The Fed needs to be smaller and more limited.

[Gman]

The Fed needs to be smaller and more limited.
Indeed, the way that it was designed in the Constitution.

[Kraven251]

Depends, where were the shops set up? were they within 1000 feet of a school?


Under Federal law the affected areas can include illegal federal drug sales on, or within one thousand feet of, real property comprising a public or private elementary, vocational, or secondary school or a public or private college, junior college, or university, or a playground, or housing facility owned by a public housing authority, or within 100 feet of a public or private youth center, public swimming pool, or video arcade facility.


If yes, then the Fed was within their right, if not then they need to leave these places alone.

[Sawin]

States rights aside, it's still federally illegal. DEA is welcome here too

Until the states re-assert their 10th amendment rights federal law will take precedence over state law.

This is exactly why I voted the way I did. I cannot get over the pushover state administrations we've had the past several years.... Montana and Arizona aside. While the states are failing to assert their own level of sovereignty, the liberal left is pushing their agenda further and further by dumbing down the population more by the day. While I firmly believe that states rights should and must trump federal ones, the fact that the states in general, aren't standing their ground on them makes me hope for an "example" that rekindles the need for states to hold steady on what their population has decided upon...regardless of which political slant. Maybe this will be it? I just want to see some damned spines in this country and don't see many anywhere.

[Monky]

You guys don't remember obummers drug czar saying he'd go after them. Guess one person in his admin can be held to their word


Sent by a free-range electronic weasel, with no sense of personal space.

[Zundfolge]

I support legalization, but believe it has to be done at the federal level FIRST, then the individual states can decide if they want it legal there or not (yes, it should be the other way around, but the Federal laws are already in place and need to be overturned first).


That said, the recreational pot people tend to be liberal Democrats so while I don't like the Federal government messing with the people, part of me still gets a kick out of watching people that are otherwise leftist, utopian statists get the guns of the Federal leviathan they created turned on themselves.

[mtnhack]

You guys don't remember obummers drug czar saying he'd go after them. Guess one person in his admin can be held to their word


Sent by a free-range electronic weasel, with no sense of personal space.Yes I do. ;) #12 (http://www.ar-15.co/threads/111483-DEA-Raids-Washington-MJ-dispensaries?p=1250455&viewfull=1#post1250455)


And Zundfolge, I don't think this level of enforcement or legislating should fall on the feds shoulders, which is why I say the DEA needs out of this issue.

[Zundfolge]

And Zundfolge, I don't think this level of enforcement or legislating should fall on the feds shoulders, which is why I say the DEA needs out of this issue.

Oh, I agree. My point is that we now live in a post-constitutional America. We're no longer a "nation of laws" we're a "nation of men" and it is primarily because of the efforts of those on the left. Some of these same leftists are the people that own the pot shops so if we have to live in this lawless totalitarian state they helped create at least they get a little comeuppance.

A little schadenfreude as we all slide into the abyss is the closest thing to "hope" I can muster these days. :p

[tonantius]

The commerce clause is for interstate commerce. If marijuana is grown within a state and it is legal it is not a federal matter. The DEA can be told by the local law enforcement to stay out. There was a Sheriff Mack legal precedent ruled by the US Supreme Court that the feds cannot run rough shod over the local law enforcement.

[Zundfolge]

The commerce clause is for interstate commerce. If marijuana is grown within a state and it is legal it is not a federal matter. The DEA can be told by the local law enforcement to stay out. There was a Sheriff Mack legal precedent ruled by the US Supreme Court that the feds cannot run rough shod over the local law enforcement.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) eliminated the original intent of the Commerce Clause.

[CO Hugh]

Suckers. The feds have been waiting for the businesses to grow so they can raid them and obtain asset forfeiture of the business and owners. They want cash not dope.

[RblDiver]

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) eliminated the original intent of the Commerce Clause.

I can just picture it now, "By selling his MJ grown inside the state, he prevented MJ grown outside the state from being imported and sold in WA, thus he falls under commerce clause jurisdiction."

[Zundfolge]

I can just picture it now, "By selling his MJ grown inside the state, he prevented MJ grown outside the state from being imported and sold in WA, thus he falls under commerce clause jurisdiction."

No, the way they'll use Wickard v. Fulburn is to say; "By growing/selling MJ in a state where it's legal, it might end up in another state where it's illegal, thus it falls under commerce clause jurisdiction."

[RblDiver]

No, the way they'll use Wickard v. Fulburn is to say; "By growing/selling MJ in a state where it's legal, it might end up in another state where it's illegal, thus it falls under commerce clause jurisdiction."

I think mine'd fall more under the "Wickard v Filburn" style.

"The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat, he would have had to buy wheat on the open market."

[Aloha_Shooter]

Hmmm.... really can't answer this poll as I'm inclined to say both "eff the dopers" and "this is a states rights issue". I heard someone on the radio a few nights ago saying from his personal experience, alcohol was more dangerous than MJ because he knew more people who messed up their lives using alcohol. The problem with that statement is that it looks at gross numbers rather than per capita numbers.

Real quick apocryphal statistical analysis although the numbers are too small to be statistically significant:

In my immediate family, I can count myself and 18 relatives, all of whom enjoy/enjoyed alcohol to varying degrees. Of the 19, we have 1 known heavy pot user, 1 I'm reasonably sure tried pot more than experimentally and 2 that may have experimented. The heavy pot user has always been a waste case and messed up his life, drifting from temporary job to long-term unemployment to temporary job to long-term unemployment, etc. The one who probably used pot more than experimentally had drifted a bit in his younger years but has cleaned up and really gotten his life together (possibly coincidental to abandoning or at least severely reducing his use of pot). Of the other 16, only one has messed up his life; possibly due to alcohol but also possibly due to his philandering. So at least in our family, there's a much much higher correlation of pot use than alcohol use to a messed up personal life.

I see similar trends (albeit lower overall) amongst my college friends: pot use doesn't correlate well enough to messed up personal lives for me to use it as a predictor but it DOES correlate orders of magnitude higher than drinking beer/wine/liquor. Consequently, it's not a behavior I'm interested in spending any time or energy defending and it's only the prospect of an overreaching federal government that garners even the slightest interest on my part.

[3beansalad]

Hmmm.... really can't answer this poll as I'm inclined to say both "eff the dopers" and "this is a states rights issue". I heard someone on the radio a few nights ago saying from his personal experience, alcohol was more dangerous than MJ because he knew more people who messed up their lives using alcohol. The problem with that statement is that it looks at gross numbers rather than per capita numbers.

Real quick apocryphal statistical analysis although the numbers are too small to be statistically significant:

In my immediate family, I can count myself and 18 relatives, all of whom enjoy/enjoyed alcohol to varying degrees. Of the 19, we have 1 known heavy pot user, 1 I'm reasonably sure tried pot more than experimentally and 2 that may have experimented. The heavy pot user has always been a waste case and messed up his life, drifting from temporary job to long-term unemployment to temporary job to long-term unemployment, etc. The one who probably used pot more than experimentally had drifted a bit in his younger years but has cleaned up and really gotten his life together (possibly coincidental to abandoning or at least severely reducing his use of pot). Of the other 16, only one has messed up his life; possibly due to alcohol but also possibly due to his philandering. So at least in our family, there's a much much higher correlation of pot use than alcohol use to a messed up personal life.

I see similar trends (albeit lower overall) amongst my college friends: pot use doesn't correlate well enough to messed up personal lives for me to use it as a predictor but it DOES correlate orders of magnitude higher than drinking beer/wine/liquor. Consequently, it's not a behavior I'm interested in spending any time or energy defending and it's only the prospect of an overreaching federal government that garners even the slightest interest on my part.

Holy crap, are we related? Sounds like my family (tho larger) and my sentiments exactly...

[Ronin13]

Aloha- Very well put argument and good example! I can relate as I have friends and acquaintances who use pot frequently. I know about 8 people who are heavy, what I would call, "Potheads." They range in age from 23-27. Of these 8 exactly 8 of them are not settled into any kind of what one can refer to as a "career." Most are McJobs, really nothing to write home about. Unfortunately, of these 8, 2 have college degrees. Of those two I know one has one of those BS (for Bullshit, not bachelor of science) degrees that pretty much is a complete waste of time and money. Neither degree holding person has a real meaningful job, at least nothing that affords them much upward mobility or comfortable living. And for some odd reason, these 8 people seem completely content living paycheck-to-paycheck, not rising above their current station. It could be that they're just unmotivated or perfectly happy with their lives. Or, and I believe this is more likely, pot ruined them.

[mtnhack]

Aloha, I have to say I have the opposite sampling in my family/close friends. Alcohol has severely affected one branch of the family tree with the father dying at 51 from a severe case of pickling, but unfortunately not before he trashed the rest of his immediate family. The kids are not well, but at least one is smart enough that he now makes an okay life for himself. A good friend of mine died at the age of 41, and alcohol was the cause after multiple stints in rehab for alcohol alone and an inability to put it down despite many caring individuals trying to intervene. Two other college buddies are also dead (one at 37 or 38 and the other was at 40) and both of them had alcohol issues, but I can't say that alcohol definitely killed them. Another college friend is now homeless because of his alcohol issues (and I think undiagnosed psycosis of some kind). My wife's best friend had her family ripped apart by her drunk of a husband.

I know quite a few full on pot heads that are better off than most, but I don't know one that weed could be shown to have even moderately affected their overall well being, let alone their family. This is all anecdotal and probably not very statistically significant either, but looking at it now, I know a lot of people that have had their lives moderately to severely altered by booze.


The reason I posted this is because I believe the federal government is overreaching on MANY levels and this is just one more. Our representatives seem to feel that they need to get their names in the history books by shitting out another useless bill. Sometimes this egotistical lust for fame gives them the bright idea to attack our rights or empower the government in ways it was never intended. I am not championing MJ but rather personal liberties whether they come constitutionally, or via the voting booth.

[Aloha_Shooter]

mtnhack, I know lots of people have had their lives ruined by overuse of alcohol (or at least overused alcohol as they ruined their lives) but that's why I said it needs to be looked at in a per capita basis when you make a statement like the radio caller did. To claim alcohol is more dangerous implies it has a statistically higher probability of ruining the life of every person who uses it. When I look at my family, I'm seeing 1/2 or maybe 1/4 pot users who messed up their lives versus 2/19 alcohol consumers. That's a big difference in ratio. Note by the way that I never said use of pot caused their life screwups -- to this day I don't think we know for sure whether dependencies themselves ruin the lives or whether the people who are prone to ruining their lives are also prone to indulge in activities or substances that help them forget they're doing so. Correlation is not causation.

Now if you want to discuss third-party victims, I think the statistics flip -- in part because pot so frequently seems to take away the drive to do much of anything -- but claiming that alcohol is "more dangerous" is specious at best and that's readily apparent when you look at the much much larger set of consumers who do NOT have problems.