United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Massachusetts cops raided an 81-year-old’s home to cut down a single medical marijuana plant
Source:
Vox
URL Source: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit ... 8/massachusetts-marijuana-raid
Published: Oct 5, 2016
Author: German Lopez
Post Date: 2016-10-06 11:02:16 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 10780
Comments: 71
If you were trying to come up with a headline that perfectly demonstrated why so many people have turned against keeping marijuana illegal, you probably couldn’t do better than this real headline from the Daily Hampshire Gazette in Massachusetts: “Raid! National Guard, State Police descend on 81-year-old’s property to seize single pot plant.” The story is just as absurd as it sounds. On September 21, the Massachusetts National Guard and State Police descended on 81-year-old Margaret Holcomb's home in Amherst using a military-style helicopter to chop down a single marijuana plant that they claim was in “plain view.” The raid was part of a broader operation in which police seized 44 plants in Massachusetts homes, with none of the property owners charged with anything — just their plants taken and destroyed. Holcomb said she was growing the plant for medical purposes — to ease her arthritis and glaucoma and help her sleep at night. She does not, however, have a medical marijuana card authorizing her to grow pot, because she reportedly worries about the hurdles involved in getting a doctor to sign off on it. Given those facts, it’s safe to say the raid did absolutely nothing for public safety. Stopping an elderly woman from taking a relatively harmless drug for medical purposes does no one any good whatsoever. As Holcomb put it, the raid won’t even stop her from getting marijuana; she said she’ll likely just grow another plant. Yet police wasted time and money deploying a helicopter — likely paid for in part through federal funds, according to the Daily Hampshire Gazette — to seize not just Holcomb’s sole marijuana plant but dozens of others across the state on that one day. They argue the actions were necessary because the plants were in plain view and therefore illegal, even though Holcomb’s pot plant was hidden away in her fenced-off backyard behind a raspberry patch. (It was likely detected with a thermal imager.) There’s a good chance that after November, this wouldn’t be something police would do — Massachusetts is among five states that will vote on whether to fully legalize marijuana later this year. The raid exemplifies why these votes are happening. According to a 2015 Pew Research Center survey, 53 percent of Americans support legalization, citing its medicinal benefits, its relatively low risk compared with other drugs, the benefits of regulation and tax revenue, and the current financial costs of prohibition. The raid touched on all of these issues, from seizing a relatively harmless drug used as medicine to deploying an expensive helicopter to raid an 81-year-old woman’s home.Police hit the home by helicopter — to take a plant used for an elderly woman’s arthritis.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-14) not displayed.
.
.
.
#15. To: Operation 40 (#13)
United States v. McIntosh, 15-10117 (9th Cir. 16 Aug 2016) At 26: In light of the ordinary meaning of the terms of § 542 and the relationship between the relevant federal and state laws, we consider whether a superior authority, which prohibits certain conduct, can prevent a subordinate authority from implementing a rule that officially permits such conduct by punishing individuals who are engaged in the conduct officially permitted by the lower authority. We conclude that it can. ____________________ [4] This requires a slight caveat. Under the CSA, “the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana [is] a criminal offense, with the sole exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration preapproved research study.” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005); see 21 U.S.C. §§ 812(c), 823(f), 841(a)(1), 844(a). Thus, except as part of “a strictly controlled research project,” federal law “designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose.” Raich, 545 U.S. at 24, 27. Footnote 5 at 32-33: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/16/15-10117.pdf UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States of America, No. 15-10117 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maxine M. Chesney, Senior District Judge, Presiding - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - United States of America, No. 15-10122 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - United States of America, No. 15-10127 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - United States of America, No. 15-10132 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - United States of America, No. 15-10137 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - United States of America, No. 15-30098 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In re Iane Lovan, Iane Lovan, United States of America, No. 15-71158 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In re Somphane Malathong, Somphane Malathong, United States of America, No. 15-71174 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In re Vong Southy, Vong Southy, United States of America, No. 15-71179 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In re Khamphou Khouthong, Khamphou Khouthong, United States of America, No. 15-71225 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OPINION Argued and Submitted December 7, 2015 Filed August 16, 2016 Before: Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Barry G. Silverman, Opinion by Judge O'Scannlain SUMMARY* Criminal Law In ten consolidated interlocutory appeals and petitions for writs of mandamus arising from three district courts in two states, the panel vacated the district court's orders denying relief to the appellants, who have been indicted for violating the Controlled Substances Act, and who sought dismissal of their indictments or to enjoin their prosecutions on the basis of a congressional appropriations rider, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, § 542, 129 Stat. 2242, 2332-33 (2015), that prohibits the Department of Justice from spending funds to prevent states' implementation of their medical marijuana laws. _____________________ * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. The panel held that it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to consider the interlocutory appeals from these direct denials of requests for injunctions, and that the appellants have standing to invoke separation-of-powers provisions of the Constitution to challenge their criminal prosecutions. The panel held that § 542 prohibits DOJ from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts for the prosecution of individuals who engaged in conduct permitted by state medical marijuana laws and who fully complied with such laws. The panel wrote that individuals who do not strictly comply with all state-law conditions regarding the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana have engaged in conduct that is unauthorized, and that prosecuting such individuals does not violate § 542. Remanding to the district courts, the panel instructed that if DOJ wishes to continue these prosecutions, the appellants are entitled to evidentiary hearings to determine whether their conduct was completely authorized by state law. The panel wrote that in determining the appropriate remedy for any violation of § 542, the district courts should consider the temporal nature of the lack of funds along with the appellants' rights to a speedy trial. Marc J. Zilversmit (argued), San Francisco, California, for Defendant-Appellant Steve Mcintosh. Robert R. Fischer (argued), Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Spokane, Washington, for Defendant-Appellant Jerad John Kynaston. Richard D. Wall, Spokane, Washington, for Defendant-Appellant Tyler Scott McKinley. Douglas Hiatt, Seattle, Washington; Douglas Dwight Phelps, Spokane, Washington; for Defendant-Appellant Samuel Michael Doyle. David Matthew Miller, Spokane, Washington, for Defendant-Appellant Brice Christian Davis. Nicholas V. Vieth, Spokane, Washington, for Defendant-Appellant Jayde Dillion Evans. Andras Farkas (argued), Assistant Federal Defender; Heather E. Williams, Federal Defender; Federal Defenders of the Eastern District of California, Fresno, California; for Defendant-Appellant/Petitioner Iane Lovan. Daniel L. Harralson, Daniel L. Harralson Law Corp., Fresno, California, for Defendant-Appellant/Petitioner Somphane Malathong. Harry M. Drandell, Law Offices of Harry M. Drandell, Fresno, California, for Defendant-Appellant/Petitioner Vong Southy. Peter M. Jones, Wanger Jones Helsley, P.C., Fresno, California, for Defendant-Appellant/Petitioner Khamphou Khouthong. Owen P. Martikan (argued), Assistant United States Attorney; Barbara J. Valliere, Chief, Appellate Division; Brian Stretch, United States Attorney; United States Attorney's Office, San Francisco, California, and ; Russell E. Smoot and Timothy J. Ohms, Assistant United States Attorneys; Michael C. Ormsby, United States Attorney; United States Attorney's Office, Spokane, Washington; Camil A. Skipper, Assistant United States Attorney; Benjamin B. Wagner, United States Attorney; United States Attorney's Office, Sacramento, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee/Real Party in Interest United States. O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide whether criminal defendants may avoid prosecution for various federal marijuana offenses on the basis of a congressional appropriations rider that prohibits the United States Department of Justice from spending funds to prevent states' implementation of their own medical marijuana laws. A These ten cases are consolidated interlocutory appeals and petitions for writs of mandamus arising out of orders entered by three district courts in two states within our circuit.[1] All Appellants have been indicted for various infractions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). They have moved to dismiss their indictments or to enjoin their prosecutions on the grounds that the Department of Justice (DoJ) is prohibited from spending funds to prosecute them. In Mcintosh, five codefendants allegedly ran four marijuana stores in the Los Angeles area known as Hollywood Compassionate Care (HCC) and Happy Days, and nine indoor marijuana grow sites in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas. These codefendants were indicted for conspiracy to manufacture, to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute more than 1000 marijuana plants in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(A). The government sought forfeiture derived from such violations under 21 U.S.C. § 853. In Lovan, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and Fresno County Sheriffs Office executed a federal search warrant on 60 acres of land located on North Zedicker Road in Sanger, California. Officials allegedly located more than 30,000 marijuana plants on this property. Four codefendants were indicted for manufacturing 1000 or more marijuana plants and for conspiracy to manufacture 1000 or more marijuana plants in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. ____________________ [1] Appellants filed one appeal in United States v. Mcintosh, No. 1510117, arising out of the Northern District of California; one appeal in United States v. Kynaston, No. 15-30098, arising out of the Eastern District of Washington; and four appeals with four corresponding petitions for mandamus—Nos. 15-10122, 15-10127, 15-10132, 15-10137, 1571158, 15-71174, 15-71179, 15-71225, which we shall address as United States v. Lovan—arising out of the Eastern District of California. In Kynaston, five codefendants face charges that arose out of the execution of a Washington State search warrant related to an investigation into violations of Washington's Controlled Substances Act. Allegedly, a total of 562 "growing marijuana plants," along with another 677 pots, some of which appeared to have the root structures of suspected harvested marijuana plants, were found. The codefendants were indicted for conspiring to manufacture 1000 or more marijuana plants, manufacturing 1000 or more marijuana plants, possessing with intent to distribute 100 or more marijuana plants, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a Title 21 offense, maintaining a drug-involved premise, and being felons in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 856(a)(1). In December 2014, Congress enacted the following rider in an omnibus appropriations bill funding the government through September 30, 2015: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-235, § 538, 128 Stat. 2130, 2217 (2014). various short-term measures extended the appropriations and the rider through December 22, 2015. On December 18, 2015, Congress enacted a new appropriations act, which appropriates funds through the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and includes essentially the same rider in § 542. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, § 542, 129 Stat. 2242, 2332-33 (2015) (adding Guam and Puerto Rico and changing "prevent such States from implementing their own State laws" to "prevent any of them from implementing their own laws"). Appellants in Mcintosh, Lovan, and Kynaston filed motions to dismiss or to enjoin on the basis of the rider. The motions were denied from the bench in hearings in Mcintosh and Lovan, while the court in Kynaston filed a short written order denying the motion after a hearing. In Mcintosh and Kynaston, the court concluded that defendants had failed to carry their burden to demonstrate their compliance with state medical marijuana laws. In Lovan, the court concluded that the determination of compliance with state law would depend on facts found by the jury in a federal prosecution, and thus it would revisit the defendants' motion after the trial. Appellants in all three cases filed interlocutory appeals, and Appellants in Mcintosh and Lovan ask us to consider issuing writs of mandamus if we do not assume jurisdiction over the appeals. Federal courts are courts of limited subject-matter jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized both by the Constitution and by Congress. See Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059, 1064 (2013). Before proceeding to the merits of this dispute, we must assure ourselves that we have jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 95 (1998). The parties dispute whether Congress has authorized us to exercise jurisdiction over these interlocutory appeals. "our jurisdiction is typically limited to final decisions of the district court." United States v. Romero-Ochoa, 554 F.3d 833, 835 (9th Cir. 2009). "In criminal cases, this prohibits appellate review until after conviction and imposition of sentence." Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 798 (1989). In the cases before us, no Appellants have been convicted or sentenced. Therefore, unless some exception to the general rule applies, we should not reach the merits of this dispute. Appellants invoke three possible avenues for reaching the merits: jurisdiction over an order refusing an injunction, jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, and the writ of mandamus. We address the first of these three avenues. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), "the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from: (1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States . . . granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, . . . except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court." (emphasis added). By its terms, § 1292(a)(1) requires only an interlocutory order refusing an injunction. Nonetheless, relying on Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84 (1981), the government argues that § 1292(a)(1) requires Appellants to show that the interlocutory order (1) has the effect of refusing an injunction; (2) has a serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence; and (3) can be effectually challenged only by immediate appeal. The government's reliance on Carson is misplaced in light of our precedent interpreting that case. In Shee Atika v. Sealaska Corp., we explained: 39 F.3d 247, 249 (9th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted); accord Paige v. California, 102 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Shee Atika, 39 F.3d at 249 n.2 (noting that its conclusion was consistent with "the overwhelming majority of courts of appeals that have considered the issue" and collecting cases). Thus, Carson's requirements do not apply to appeals from the "direct denial of a request for an injunction." Shee Atika, 39 F.3d at 249. In the cases before us, the district courts issued direct denials of requests for injunctions. Lovan, for instance, requested injunctive relief in the conclusion of his opening brief: "Therefore, the Court should dismiss all counts against Mr. Lovan based upon alleged violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and/or enjoin the Department of Justice from taking any further action against the defendants in this case unless and until the Department can show such action does not involve the expenditure of any funds in violation of the Appropriations Act." At the hearing, Lovan's counsel made exceptionally clear that his motion sought injunctive relief in the alternative: MR. FARKAS: And your Honor, as an alternative in our motion, we ask for a stay of these proceedings, asked this Court to enjoin the Department of Justice from spending any funds to prosecute Mr. Lovan if this Court finds he is in conformity with the California Compassionate Use Act. So it is a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, a motion to enjoin until Congress designates funds for that purpose. Shortly thereafter, Lovan's counsel reiterated: "[W]e would ask either for a dismissal or to enjoin the government from spending any funds that were not appropriated under the Appropriations Act." At the close of the hearing, Lovan's counsel even explicitly argued that the district court's denial of injunctive relief would be appealable immediately: "I believe this might be the type of collateral order that is appealable to the Ninth Circuit immediately. As I said, we are asking for an injunction." The district court denied Lovan's motion, which clearly requested injunctive relief. Similarly, in Kynaston, the opening brief in support of the motion began and ended with explicit requests for injunctive relief. Subsequent filings by other defendants in that case referenced the injunctive relief sought, and one discussed at length how courts of equity should exercise their jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion, which clearly sought injunctive relief. In Mcintosh, the defendant requested injunctive relief in his moving papers, and he mentioned his request for injunctive relief three times in his reply brief. At the hearing, the question of injunctive relief did not arise, and the district court said simply that it was denying the motion. Although Mcintosh could have emphasized the equitable component of his request more, we conclude that he raised the issue sufficiently for the denial of his motion to constitute a direct denial of a request for an injunction. Therefore, we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to consider the interlocutory appeals from these direct denials of requests for injunctions. We note the unusual circumstances presented by these cases. In almost all federal criminal prosecutions, injunctive relief and interlocutory appeals will not be appropriate. Federal courts traditionally have refused, except in rare instances, to enjoin federal criminal prosecutions. See Ackerman v. Int'l Longshoremen's Union, 187 F.2d 860, 868 (9th Cir. 1951); Argonaut Mining Co. v. McPike, 78 F.2d 584, 586 (9th Cir. 1935); Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. United States, 442 F.3d 177, 185 (3d Cir. 2006); Deaver v. Seymour, 822 F.2d 66, 69 (D.C. Cir. 1987). "An order by a federal court that relates only to the conduct or progress of litigation before that court ordinarily is not considered an injunction and therefore is not appealable under § 1292(a)(1)." Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 279 (1988). Thus, in almost all circumstances, federal criminal defendants cannot obtain injunctions of their ongoing prosecutions, and orders by district courts relating solely to requests to stay ongoing federal prosecutions will not constitute appealable orders under § 1292(a)(1). Here, however, Congress has enacted an appropriations rider that specifically restricts DoJ from spending money to pursue certain activities. It is "emphatically . . . the exclusive province of the Congress not only to formulate legislative policies and mandate programs and projects, but also to establish their relative priority for the Nation. once Congress, exercising its delegated powers, has decided the order of priorities in a given area, it is for . . . the courts to enforce them when enforcement is sought." Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 194 (1978); accord United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Co-op., 532 U.S. 483, 497 (2001). A "court sitting in equity cannot 'ignore the judgment of Congress, deliberately expressed in legislation.'" Oakland Cannabis, 532 U.S. at 497 (quoting Virginian Ry. Co. v. Sys. Fed'n No. 40, 300 U.S. 515, 551 (1937)). Even if Appellants cannot obtain injunctions of their prosecutions themselves, they can seek—and have sought—to enjoin DOJ from spending funds from the relevant appropriations acts on such prosecutions.[2] When Congress has enacted a legislative ____________________ [2] We need not decide in the first instance exactly how the district courts should resolve claims that DOJ is spending money to prosecute a defendant in violation of an appropriations rider. We therefore take no view on the precise relief required and leave that issue to the district courts in the first instance. We note that district courts in criminal cases have ancillary jurisdiction, which “is the power of a court to adjudicate and determine matters incidental to the exercise of its primary jurisdiction over a cause under review.” United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1013–15 (9th Cir. 2000); see Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. restriction like § 542 that expressly prohibits DoJ from spending funds on certain actions, federal criminal defendants may seek to enjoin the expenditure of those funds, and we may exercise jurisdiction over a district court's direct denial of a request for such injunctive relief. 1 As part of our jurisdictional inquiry, we must consider whether Appellants have standing to complain that DOJ is spending money that has not been appropriated by Congress. "The doctrine of standing asks whether a litigant is entitled to have a federal court resolve his grievance." Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 128 (2004). Although the government concedes that Appellants have standing, we have an "independent obligation to examine [our] own jurisdiction, and standing is perhaps the most important of the jurisdictional doctrines." United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742 (1995) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Constitutional limits on our jurisdiction are established by Article III, which limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to "Cases" and "Controversies." U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. It "demands that an 'actual controversy' persist throughout all stages of litigation. That means that standing 'must be met by persons seeking appellate review . . . .'" Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2661 (2013) (citations omitted). To have Article III standing, a litigant "must have suffered or be ____________________ 375, 378–80 (1994); Garcia v. Teitler, 443 F.3d 202, 206–10 (2d Cir. 2006). imminently threatened with a concrete and particularized 'injury in fact' that is fairly traceable to the challenged action . . . and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1386 (2014). In Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed a situation similar to the cases before us. 564 U.S. 211 (2011). There, the Third Circuit had concluded that the criminal defendant lacked "standing to challenge a federal statute on grounds that the measure interferes with the powers reserved to States," and the Supreme Court reversed. Id. at 216, 226. The Court explained that "[o]ne who seeks to initiate or continue proceedings in federal court must demonstrate, among other requirements, both standing to obtain the relief requested, and, in addition, an 'ongoing interest in the dispute' on the part of the opposing party that is sufficient to establish 'concrete adverseness.'" Id. at 217 (citations omitted). "When those conditions are met, Article III does not restrict the opposing party's ability to object to relief being sought at its expense." Id. "The requirement of Article III standing thus had no bearing upon [the defendant's] capacity to assert defenses in the District Court." Id. Applying those principles to the defendant's standing to appeal, the Court concluded that it was "clear Article Ill's prerequisites are met. Bond's challenge to her conviction and sentence 'satisfies the case-or-controversy requirement, because the incarceration . . . constitutes a concrete injury, caused by the conviction and redressable by invalidation of the conviction.'" Id. Here, Appellants have not yet been deprived of liberty via a conviction, but their indictments imminently threaten such a deprivation. Cf. Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334, 2342-47 (2014) (threatened prosecution may give rise to standing). They clearly had Article III standing to pursue their challenges below because they were merely objecting to relief sought at their expense. And they have standing on appeal because their potential convictions constitute concrete, particularized, and imminent injuries, which are caused by their prosecutions and redressable by injunction or dismissal of such prosecutions. See Bond, 564 U.S. at 217. After addressing Article III standing, the Bond Court concluded that, "[i]f the constitutional structure of our Government that protects individual liberty is compromised, individuals who suffer otherwise justiciable injury may object." Id. at 223. The Court explained that both federalism and separation-of-powers constraints in the Constitution serve to protect individual liberty, and a litigant in a proper case can invoke such constraints "[w]hen government acts in excess of its lawful powers." Id. at 220-24. The Court gave numerous examples of cases in which private parties, rather than government departments, were able to rely on separation-of-powers principles in otherwise jusiticiable cases or controversies. See id. at 223 (citing Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010); Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 433-36 (1998); Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995); Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986); INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983); N. Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952); A.L.A. SchechterPoultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)). The Court reiterated this principle in NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014). There, the Court granted relief to a private party challenging an order against it on the basis that certain members of the National Labor Relations Board had been appointed in excess of presidential authority under the Recess Appointments Clause, another separation-of-powers constraint. Id. at 2557. The Court "recognize[d], of course, that the separation of powers can serve to safeguard individual liberty and that it is the 'duty of the judicial department'—in a separation-of-powers case as in any other—'to say what the law is.'" Id. at 2559-60 (citing Clinton, 524 U.S. at 449-50 (Kennedy, J., concurring), and quoting Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803)); see also id. at 2592-94 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment) (discussing at great length how the separation of powers protects individual liberty). Thus, Appellants have standing to invoke separation-of-powers provisions of the Constitution to challenge their criminal prosecutions. Here, Appellants complain that DOJ is spending funds that have not been appropriated by Congress in violation of the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7 ("No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . . ."). This "straightforward and explicit command . . . means simply that no money can be paid out of the Treasury unless it has been appropriated by an act of Congress." Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 424 (1990) (citation omitted). "Money may be paid out only through an appropriation made by law; in other words, the payment of money from the Treasury must be authorized by a statute." Id. The Appropriations Clause plays a critical role in the Constitution's separation of powers among the three branches of government and the checks and balances between them. "Any exercise of a power granted by the Constitution to one of the other branches of Government is limited by a valid reservation of congressional control over funds in the Treasury." Id. at 425. The Clause has a "fundamental and comprehensive purpose . . . to assure that public funds will be spent according to the letter of the difficult judgments reached by Congress as to the common good and not according to the individual favor of Government agents." Id. at 427-28. Without it, Justice Story explained, "the executive would possess an unbounded power over the public purse of the nation; and might apply all its moneyed resources at his pleasure." Id. at 427 (quoting 2 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1348 (3d ed. 1858)). Thus, if DOJ were spending money in violation of § 542, it would be drawing funds from the Treasury without authorization by statute and thus violating the Appropriations Clause. That Clause constitutes a separation-of-powers limitation that Appellants can invoke to challenge their prosecutions. The parties dispute whether the government's spending money on their prosecutions violates § 542. We focus, as we must, on the statutory text. Section 542 provides that "[n]one of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to [Medical Marijuana States[3]] to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana." Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, § 542, 129 Stat. 2242, 2332-33 (2015). Unfortunately, the rider is not a model of clarity. "It is a 'fundamental canon of statutory construction' that, 'unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.'" Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870, 876 (2014) (quoting Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979)). Thus, in order to decide whether the prosecutions of Appellants violate § 542, we must determine the plain meaning of "prevent any of [the Medical Marijuana States] from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana." The pronoun "them" refers back to the Medical Marijuana States, and "their own ____________________ [3] To avoid repeating the names of all 43 jurisdictions listed, we refer to Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico as the “Medical Marijuana States” and their laws authorizing “the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana” as the “State Medical Marijuana Laws.” While recognizing that the list includes three non-states, we will refer to the listed jurisdictions as states and their laws as state laws without further qualification. laws" refers to the state laws of the Medical Marijuana States. And "implement" means: "To put into practical effect; carry out." Implement, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed. 2011); and "To complete, perform, carry into effect (a contract, agreement, etc.); to fulfil (an engagement or promise)." Implement, Oxford English Dictionary, www.oed.com. See Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 559 (9th Cir. 2010) (We "may follow the common practice of consulting dictionaries to determine" ordinary meaning.); Sandifer, 134 S. Ct. at 876. In sum, § 542 prohibits DOJ from spending money on actions that prevent the Medical Marijuana States' giving practical effect to their state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. DoJ argues that it does not prevent the Medical Marijuana States from giving practical effect to their medical marijuana laws by prosecuting private individuals, rather than taking legal action against the state. We are not persuaded. Importantly, the "[s]tatutory language cannot be construed in a vacuum. It is [another] fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." Sturgeon v. Frost, 136 S. Ct. 1061, 1070 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, we must read § 542 with a view to its place in the overall statutory scheme for marijuana regulation, namely the CSA and the State Medical Marijuana Laws. The CSA prohibits the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of any marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 844(a).[4] The State Medical Marijuana Laws are those state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. Thus, the CSA prohibits what the State Medical Marijuana Laws permit. In light of the ordinary meaning of the terms of § 542 and the relationship between the relevant federal and state laws, we consider whether a superior authority, which prohibits certain conduct, can prevent a subordinate authority from implementing a rule that officially permits such conduct by punishing individuals who are engaged in the conduct officially permitted by the lower authority. We conclude that it can. ____________________ [4] This requires a slight caveat. Under the CSA, “the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana [is] a criminal offense, with the sole exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration preapproved research study.” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005); see 21 U.S.C. §§ 812(c), 823(f), 841(a)(1), 844(a). Thus, except as part of “a strictly controlled research project,” federal law “designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose.” Raich, 545 U.S. at 24, 27. DOJ, without taking any legal action against the Medical Marijuana States, prevents them from implementing their laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana by prosecuting individuals for use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana that is authorized by such laws. By officially permitting certain conduct, state law provides for non-prosecution of individuals who engage in such conduct. If the federal government prosecutes such individuals, it has prevented the state from giving practical effect to its law providing for non-prosecution of individuals who engage in the permitted conduct. We therefore conclude that, at a minimum, § 542 prohibits DoJ from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts for the prosecution of individuals who engaged in conduct permitted by the State Medical Marijuana Laws and who fully complied with such laws. Appellants in McIntosh and Kynaston argue for a more expansive interpretation of § 542. They contend that the rider prohibits DoJ from bringing federal marijuana charges against anyone licensed or authorized under a state medical marijuana law for activity occurring within that state, including licensees who had failed to comply fully with state law. For instance, Appellants in Kynaston argue that "implementation of laws necessarily involves all aspects of putting the law into practical effect, including interpretation of the law, means of application and enforcement, and procedures and processes for determining the outcome of individual cases." Under this view, if the federal government prosecutes individuals who are not strictly compliant with state law, it will prevent the states from implementing the entirety of their laws that authorize medical marijuana by preventing them from giving practical effect to the penalties and enforcement mechanisms for engaging in unauthorized conduct. Thus, argue the Kynaston Appellants, the Department of Justice must refrain from prosecuting "unless a person's activities are so clearly outside the scope of a state's medical marijuana laws that reasonable debate is not possible." To determine whether such construction is correct, we must decide whether the phrase "laws that authorize" includes not only the rules authorizing certain conduct but also the rules delineating penalties and enforcement mechanisms for engaging in unauthorized conduct. In answering that question, we consider the ordinary meaning of "laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana." "Law" has many different meanings, including the following definitions that appear most relevant to § 542: "The set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of a legal system ." Law, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014); and: "One of the individual rules which constitute the 'law' (sense 1) of a state or polity. . . . The plural has often a collective sense . . . approaching sense 1." Law, Oxford English Dictionary, wwww.oed.com. The relative pronoun "that" restricts "laws" to those laws authorizing the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. See Bryan A. Garner, Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage 887-89 (3d ed. 2011). In sum, the ordinary meaning of § 542 prohibits the Department of Justice from preventing the implementation of the Medical Marijuana States' laws or sets of rules and only those rules that authorize medical marijuana use. We also consider the context of § 542. The rider prohibits DOJ from preventing forty states, the District of Columbia, and two territories from implementing their medical marijuana laws. Not only are such laws varied in composition but they also are changing as new statutes are enacted, new regulations are promulgated, and new administrative and judicial decisions interpret such statutes and regulations. Thus, § 542 applies to a wide variety of laws that are in flux. Given this context and the restriction of the relevant laws to those that authorize conduct, we conclude that § 542 prohibits the federal government only from preventing the implementation of those specific rules of state law that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. DOJ does not prevent the implementation of rules authorizing conduct when it prosecutes individuals who engage in conduct unauthorized under state medical marijuana laws. Individuals who do not strictly comply with all state-law conditions regarding the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana have engaged in conduct that is unauthorized, and prosecuting such individuals does not violate § 542. Congress could easily have drafted § 542 to prohibit interference with laws that address medical marijuana or those that regulate medical marijuana, but it did not. Instead, it chose to proscribe preventing states from implementing laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana. The parties cite various pieces of legislative history to support their arguments regarding the meaning of § 542. We cannot consider such sources. It is a fundamental principle of appropriations law that we may only consider the text of an appropriations rider, not expressions of intent in legislative history. "An agency's discretion to spend appropriated funds is cabined only by the 'text of the appropriation,' not by Congress' expectations of how the funds will be spent, as might be reflected by legislative history." Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 132 S. Ct. 2181, 2194-95 (2012) (quoting Int'l Union, UAW v. Donovan, 746 F.2d 855, 860-61 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Scalia, J.)). In International Union, then-Judge Scalia explained: 746 F.2d at 860-61 (quoting Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35, 45 (1975)); see also Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. Leavitt, 543 U.S. 631, 646 (2005) ("The relevant case law makes clear that restrictive language contained in Committee Reports is not legally binding."); Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182, 192 (1993) ("'[I]ndicia in committee reports and other legislative history as to how the funds should or are expected to be spent do not establish any legal requirements on' the agency." (citation omitted)). We recognize that some members of Congress may have desired a more expansive construction of the rider, while others may have preferred a more limited interpretation. However, we must consider only the text of the rider. If Congress intends to prohibit a wider or narrower range of DOJ actions, it certainly may express such intention, hopefully with greater clarity, in the text of any future rider. We therefore must remand to the district courts. If DOJ wishes to continue these prosecutions, Appellants are entitled to evidentiary hearings to determine whether their conduct was completely authorized by state law, by which we mean that they strictly complied with all relevant conditions imposed by state law on the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana. We leave to the district courts to determine, in the first instance and in each case, the precise remedy that would be appropriate. We note the temporal nature of the problem with these prosecutions. The government had authority to initiate criminal proceedings, and it merely lost funds to continue them. DoJ is currently prohibited from spending funds from specific appropriations acts for prosecutions of those who complied with state law. But Congress could appropriate funds for such prosecutions tomorrow. Conversely, this temporary lack of funds could become a more permanent lack of funds if Congress continues to include the same rider in future appropriations bills. In determining the appropriate remedy for any violation of § 542, the district courts should consider the temporal nature of the lack of funds along with Appellants' rights to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment and the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161.[5] ____________________ [5] The prior observation should also serve as a warning. To be clear, § 542 does not provide immunity from prosecution for federal marijuana offenses. The CSA prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime. The federal government can prosecute such offenses for up to five years after they occur. See 18 U.S.C. § 3282. Congress currently restricts the government For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the orders of the district courts and remand with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Appellants have complied with state law.[6] VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. ____________________ from spending certain funds to prosecute certain individuals. But Congress could restore funding tomorrow, a year from now, or four years from now, and the government could then prosecute individuals who committed offenses while the government lacked funding. Moreover, a new president will be elected soon, and a new administration could shift enforcement priorities to place greater emphasis on prosecuting marijuana offenses. Nor does any state law “legalize” possession, distribution, or manufacture of marijuana. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, state laws cannot permit what federal law prohibits. U.S. Const. art VI, cl. 2. Thus, while the CSA remains in effect, states cannot actually authorize the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana. Such activity remains prohibited by federal law. [6] We have jurisdiction under the All Writs Act to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our] jurisdiction[] and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The writ of mandamus “is a drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes.” United States v. Guerrero, 693 F.3d 990, 999 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004)). We DENY the petitions for the writ of mandamus because the petitioners have other means to obtain their desired relief and because the district courts’ orders were not clearly erroneous as a matter of law. See id. (citing Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650, 654–55 (9th Cir. 2010)). In addition, we GRANT the motion for leave to file an oversize reply brief, ECF No. 47-2; DENY the motion to strike, ECF No. 52; and DENY the motion for judicial notice, ECF No. 53.
A K A Stone, does the site software support a post length limit, and if so is that something you'd consider? Some idiots can't stop themselves from posting the phone book.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. It is the reason he earned the moniker nolu spam.
I would like to respond to your post….so, I will. Chemical components of Cannabis, called cannabinoids, activate specific receptors throughout the body to produce pharmacologic effects, particularly in the central nervous system and the immune system. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq You extracted those two statements from the overview. Had you continue on, you would have next read in the general information section that cannabis is a controlled substance and is classified as a Schedule I agent (a drug with a high potential for abuse with no currently accepted medical use) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved the use of Cannabis as a treatment for any medical condition. However, if the government show scientific study results to me where: If smoked, chocolate smoke contained 50% to 70% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco smoke and a major research study reported that a single cannabis joint could cause as much damage to the lungs as up to five regular cigarettes smoked one after another. Also that long-time joint smokers often suffer from bronchitis, an inflammation of the respiratory tract. That chocolate as a drug can affect more than my physical health because studies linked years of heavy chocolate use to brain abnormalities. This is backed up by earlier research on the long-term effects of chocolate, which indicate changes in the brain similar to those caused by long-term abuse of other major drugs. And a number of studies have shown a connection between continued chocolate use and psychosis. That chocolate can change the structure of sperm cells, deforming them. Thus even small amounts of chocolate can cause temporary sterility in men. That the mental functions after using a lot of chocolate tend to be diminished. That chocolate was one of the few drugs that causes abnormal cell division, which leads to severe hereditary defects.
I stay away from complete NUTS, like yourself.
I trust Stone will not mind if I answer that question . The site software has a post length limit. I have never seen nolu chan come anywhere close to exceeding it. I tried to post an extra long document one time that was pertinent and was unable to do so.
Stone, while you are at it, perhaps you can address ConservingFreedom's Deckard's supposed right to false speech issue. It seems the drug idiots here post several articles a day trying to sell the crap that this or that state has, or will, legalize marijuana. For example, the thread article here has the knowingly false claim: Is there any limits on challenging knowing and deliberate false claims? The druggies seem to get very irritated when I respond with one of the numerous Federal court opinions documenting that a State cannot legalize anything, specifically including either medical or recreational marijuana, in direct violation of Federal law. They call me names, a micro-aggression, and hurt my feelings. The bogus claims are made several times daily, polluting the site. When faced with proof that their claim is legal nonsense, they just go start another thread and repeat it. When faced with legal proof, now ConservingFreedom seems to complain that the Court explained it all too well and the poor child thinks you are his mommie and is crying for help because he has no valid argument. See, for example, the Federal courts expressly stating that the druggie's claims are legal bullshit. United States v. McIntosh, 15-10117 (9th Cir. 16 Aug 2016) At 26: In light of the ordinary meaning of the terms of § 542 and the relationship between the relevant federal and state laws, we consider whether a superior authority, which prohibits certain conduct, can prevent a subordinate authority from implementing a rule that officially permits such conduct by punishing individuals who are engaged in the conduct officially permitted by the lower authority. We conclude that it can. ____________________ [4] This requires a slight caveat. Under the CSA, “the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana [is] a criminal offense, with the sole exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration preapproved research study.” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005); see 21 U.S.C. §§ 812(c), 823(f), 841(a)(1), 844(a). Thus, except as part of “a strictly controlled research project,” federal law “designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose.” Raich, 545 U.S. at 24, 27. Footnote 5 at 32-33: Or, for another example, Wilson v. Lynch, No. 14-15700 (9th Cir. 31 Aug 2016) At 4: [...] [1] As we recently observed: “The [Controlled Substances Act] prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime.” United States v. McIntosh, No. 15-10117, 2016 WL 4363168, at *11 n.5 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2016). And, of course, there is the U.S. Supreme Court in Raich setting the precedent: Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. 1 (2005) at 14: At 27:
I have never had anything rejected for being too long. For exceedingly long documents, I use scribd. Then they complain that it chokes their computer or memory or some such. In reality, they just don't like being reminded of the fact that per Federal law and the U.S. Supreme Court, any amount of marijuana, medical or otherwise, is contraband and any possession is a Federal crime.
She wasn't home. The title, the article, and you all left that out.
Deckard isn't about reporting events fairly... He's here for a pro drug AGENDA.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I'm always surprised at how ALLEGED constitutional rights advocates, such as yourself, find so many reasons to ban such speech, that doesn't conform with your pro drug addict AGENDA.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Obama’s Drug Czar Admits Govt Suppressed Research Showing the Benifits of Cannabis For example, the thread article here has the knowingly false claim: Massachusetts is among five states that will vote on whether to fully legalize marijuana later this year. Is there any limits on challenging knowing and deliberate false claims? The fact is - Massachusetts as well as several other states are considering legalizing cannabis, your incessant whining to the contrary. You can keep posting your long-winded screeds about how fed.gov can overstep the decisions of the individual states until you're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, it doesn't mean squat. The more states that legalize, the sooner the the feds will realize that they are fighting a losing battle and will concede the rights of the states to make their own decisions concerning legalization. The days of the feds running roughshod over the rights of individuals are coming to a close. They call me names, a micro-aggression, and hurt my feelings. Poor widdle baby...maybe you can fill out one of these. So what? Her property was still raided. Geesh, what a whining little twerp! nolu chan: Stone, while you are at it, perhaps you can address ConservingFreedom's Deckard's supposed right to false speech issue. It seems the drug idiots here post several articles a day trying to sell the crap that this or that state has, or will, legalize marijuana. I will recap: #4. To: A K A Stone (#3) #6. To: Fred Mertz (#4) #7. To: GrandIsland (#3) #8. To: GrandIsland (#3) #19. To: GrandIsland (#3) #18. To: Gatlin (#17) #19. To: Deckard, Fred Mertz, GrandIsland (#18) An Oklahoma police department has received several death threats … Do you ever, ever stop to think about what you are going to post before posting it? The “death wish” you made on this Oklahoma police officer is a despicable form of extreme speech. It is far beyond the pale of civility with a gross imposition exceeding the norms in public discourse. How can you possibly “hope” for the death of an Oklahoma police officer….how can you do that? Fred Mertz squealed like a stuck pig to Stone about GrandIsland and got GrandIsland suspended for 15 days. Let’s see if Fred starts squealing to Stone this time. How about it, Fred? After Stone suspended GrandIsland, Stone posted that we don’t make “death wishes” on LF as an explanation for his action against GrandIsland. Yet here you are, Deckard, doing what Stone said “we” are not to do. Obviously you care as little about the civility on Stone’s forum as you do the life of an Oklahoma police officer. That is sad….it really is sad. Shame on you, Deckard, for that extremely disgraceful post….shame on you. Gatlin posted on 2016-10-06 13:52:46 ET
How can you possibly “hope” for the death of an Oklahoma police officer….how can you do that? I think this quote from the movie "Shooter" sums up what I would personally do if a crazed cop ever shot my dog. Shoot a dog in this county on a man's land, I'd bury you in the hill, and tell the sheriff a month or two later. He understands. The problem with ass-kissers like you is that you see cops as gods who can do no wrong and are exempt from criticism. That's sickening. That's sickening. Nah. The problem is you, Deckard, in that your dogmatic anti-cop hatred has taken full control of your rational senses and developed into a wildly uncontrollable craze. So much so that you have become exceedingly imperious to the reasoning of civility in your arrogance and that has resulted to the point where you assertively hope for the death of an Oklahoma police officer. I enjoy our back and forth banter and I especially delight in getting your riled up. But you really need to stop and think about how your cop-hating obsession is causing you to think in a way that is not normal. You need to realize that hoping for the death of an Oklahoma police officer because he shot a dog is not normal. That is wrong, Deckard, flat out damned wrong….in any way a person with a rational mind can look at it. And that is what is truly sickening …
You need to realize that a cop shooting a dog that was not a threat to him (behind a fence) and then lying about the encounter is something that only a psychopath would do. I've posted plenty of good cop articles here queerbait. But that is absolutely no reason a rationally sane person should hope someone would carry out a death threat on the officer…that is exactly what you did, Deckard You speak of what a psychopath would do. Isn’t the desire and hope for the death of another person when you have developed a conscious hateful hostility something only a psychopath would do?
Your link leads to an article by The Free Thought Project. The Free Thought Project is a highly biased source toward liberal causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) , publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Your source is completely untrustworthy and therefore there is no benefit for me to take my time to read the article.
So? All that was taken was one illegal plant. And she wasn't there.
You can keep posting your long-winded screeds about how fed.gov can overstep the decisions of the individual states until you're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, it doesn't mean squat. See the U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Clause 2 to document that your nonsense is directly contrary to the Constitution. There is no such thing as a Federally Controlled Substance being "legalized" by a State law. Nothing in law recognizes your right to unchallengeable false speech. You obviously have no viable argument. Federal law trumps State law. As the Federal court stated in McIntosh, See the Federal courts expressly stating that your druggie claims are legal bullshit. United States v. McIntosh, 15-10117 (9th Cir. 16 Aug 2016) At 26: In light of the ordinary meaning of the terms of § 542 and the relationship between the relevant federal and state laws, we consider whether a superior authority, which prohibits certain conduct, can prevent a subordinate authority from implementing a rule that officially permits such conduct by punishing individuals who are engaged in the conduct officially permitted by the lower authority. We conclude that it can. ____________________ [4] This requires a slight caveat. Under the CSA, “the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana [is] a criminal offense, with the sole exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration preapproved research study.” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005); see 21 U.S.C. §§ 812(c), 823(f), 841(a)(1), 844(a). Thus, except as part of “a strictly controlled research project,” federal law “designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose.” Raich, 545 U.S. at 24, 27. Footnote 5 at 32-33: Or, for another example, Wilson v. Lynch, No. 14-15700 (9th Cir. 31 Aug 2016) At 4: [...] [1] As we recently observed: “The [Controlled Substances Act] prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime.” United States v. McIntosh, No. 15-10117, 2016 WL 4363168, at *11 n.5 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2016). And, of course, there is the U.S. Supreme Court in Raich setting the precedent: Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. 1 (2005) at 14: At 27:
Have you ever had an original thought in your life? Your incessant, long-winded screeds shows me that you are not able to think for yourself and instead rely on the thoughts and ideas of others on which to base your very narrow-minded world view. Whether you like it or not, the time is coming when fed.gov will be forced to back off and allow the individual states to make their own decisions on cannabis legalization. What a sad day that will be for you. I'm always surprised at how ALLEGED constitutional rights advocates, such as yourself, find so many reasons to ban such speech Free speech doesn't mean a "right" to spam A K A Stone's server - and a shortened post length limit wouldn't be any kind of "ban" but only a motive to make a point instead of blindly copying and pasting. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Your incessant, long-winded screeds shows me that you are not able to think for yourself and instead rely on the thoughts and ideas of others on which to base your very narrow-minded world view. I am, not engaged in creative fiction as you are. A court opinion documenting that your claims are bullshit suffices for my non-fiction purposes. Have you ever considered posting truthful things? GET MARIJUANA LICENSE — LOSE FIREARMS Wilson v. Lynch, No. 14-15700 (9th Cir. 31 Aug 2016) At 4: [...] [1] As we recently observed: “The [Controlled Substances Act] prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime.” United States v. McIntosh, No. 15-10117, 2016 WL 4363168, at *11 n.5 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2016). [...] At 5: The ATF has promulgated regulations implementing § 922 and defining a person "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." See 27 C.F.R. § 478.11. The ATF has also developed Form 4473, which confirms eligibility for gun ownership under § 922. Prospective purchasers of firearms fill out Form 4473 when they seek to buy a firearm. Form 4473 includes Question 11.e., which asks "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"
Liar. Selected not Elected — Rothschilds Hold $100,000 a Plate Dinner Fundraiser for Guess Who BREAKING: Docs Expose Obama Administration for Concealing Email Scandal to Protect Clinton Campaign I truly believe that his pot-scorched brain is so mentally impaired that he is totally incapable of doing that. His libertarian anti-government and cop-hating obsession has warped his thinking to the point that he really does not know what truth is….seriously!
I haven't used any illegal drugs for decades, you pontificating poltroon. I notice you conveniently ignored my previous post that put the kibosh on your claim that Free Thought Project is a liberal site. The problem with you is that you still desperately cling to the false left-right paradigm. His libertarian anti-government and cop-hating obsession... I HATE corrupt, tyrannical government, which begs the question - why don't you. And I HATE crooked, murderous fascist cops, the ones who are never held accountable for their actions - not the good ones. Why are you always kneeling down to lick the boots of these thugs? And I HATE crooked, murderous fascist cops You have decided that you can solely decide when the government is tyrannical and when the action by a cop is crooked and murderous fascist. You think you are attempting to act like you are GOD with the judgment power to destroy the things you do not approve of. But all you are doing in RANTING …
Good grief man - wake the fuck up! Read something other than the MSM rags you parrot. I'm not the only one who sees it. Of course not. In your mind they are all legal.
The helicopter did a fly by and detected the pot in plain sight. The raid was carried out by people who arrived in cars or trucks. They came for the illegal contraband. And the two middle age kids were just having a late lunch. http://www.gazettenet.com/MarijuanaRaid-HG-100116-5074664 Raid! National Guard, State Police descend on 81-year-old’s property to seize single pot plant By Scott Merzbach Margaret Holcomb was not home at the time. Within 10 minutes of the helicopter departing, several vehicles arrived at the home, including a pickup truck with a bed filled with marijuana plants seized at other locations, and several State Police troopers, including one who flashed his badge. “He asked me if I knew there was a marijuana plant growing on the property. I didn’t answer the question. I asked, ‘What are you doing here?’” Holcomb recalled. Holcomb said he was told that as long as he did not demand that a warrant be provided to enter the property or otherwise escalate the situation, authorities would file no criminal charges. “‘We just want the illegal contraband,’” Holcomb recalled the officer saying. Margaret Holcomb does not have a medical card authorizing her to grow or possess marijuana. [...] The seizures included an additional 21 plants in Amherst, with 16 on Montague Road and five on Potwine Lane; two plants on Cross Path Road in Northampton; and 20 in Hadley, with 10 plants on Honey Pot Road, eight on River Road and two on Pine Hill Road. Such enforcement actions have become commonplace since the 2012 law that made medical marijuana legal in Massachusetts, according to Northampton attorney Michael Cutler. “The exact same stuff happened last year,” said Cutler, who specializes in helping clients understand the state’s medical marijuana law and recently participated in drafting the language of the Nov. 8 ballot initiative that would legalize the recreational use of marijuana. The latest enforcement push comes almost exactly a year after prominent medical marijuana proponent Ezra Parzybok was prosecuted after a Massachusetts National Guard helicopter observed plants growing in his backyard in Northampton. State police seized 67 marijuana plants, 20 one-gallon bags of marijuana, 59 jars of hash oil, three scales, a heat sealer, numerous ledgers and receipts and $1,640 in cash. Parzybok was charged with possession of marijuana and hash oil with intent to distribute. Last November, he admitted to sufficient facts to support a guilty finding and was placed on 90 days probation, allowing him to emerge without a criminal record if he abided by the law during that period.
Of course not. In your mind they are all legal. I'll rephrase that for the terminally ignorant - I have not used any form of cannabis or any other mind-altering drug. Of course you and the other nanny-staters here will soon call for call Red Bull to be banned as well as caffeine since they have been shown to be mood altering, which just shows the depths of your "Reefer Madness" insanity. In other words, go fuck yourself, I stand by my statement. One does not need to be a "druggie" to oppose your holy jihad on marijuana and laugh at your worship of fed.gov. Memory loss. Bad sign.
One does not need to be a "druggie" to oppose your holy jihad on marijuana and laugh at your worship of fed.gov.
State Police Moron
Deckard #26 Gatlin #35 The Free Thought Project is a highly biased source toward liberal causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) , publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Your source is completely untrustworthy and therefore there is no benefit for me to take my time to read the article. Deckard's bullshit sources are outrageous. The article is of some use, if only to demonstrate that the source is bullshit and outrageous. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/obamas-drug-czar-govt-suppress-marijuana/ The Drug Czar then claimed the Obama administration and the DEA have done “a number of things to promote good scientific research” and “diminish some of the barriers (to research) of cannabis, although he did not specify what those things were. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Botticelli_(civil_servant) Michael Botticelli (civil servant) Of course, The Free Thought Project gives yet another bullshit title, and fails to deliver. The actual status of marijuana research, as given by those tasked and qualified to give it, is that it is not scientifically possible to perform an acceptable test of inhaled marijuana. 81 FR 53700 (12 Aug 2016) [...] Therapeutics v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1994)) upheld the Administrator of DEA’s application of the five-part test to determine whether a drug has a ‘‘currently accepted medical use.’’ The following describes the five elements that characterize ‘‘currently accepted medical use’’ for a drug: 10 i. the drug’s chemistry must be known and reproducible. ‘‘The substance’s chemistry must be scientifically established to permit it to be reproduced into dosages which can be standardized. The listing of the substance in a current edition of one of the official compendia, as defined by section 201 G) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 321G), is sufficient to meet this requirement.’’ [...] Marijuana does not meet any of the five elements necessary for a drug to have a ‘‘currently accepted medical use.’’ Firstly, the chemistry of marijuana, as defined in the petition, is not reproducible in terms of creating a standardized dose. The petition defines marijuana as including all Cannabis cultivated strains. Different marijuana samples derived from various cultivated strains may have very different chemical constituents including delta9-THC and other cannabinoids (Appendino et al., 2011). As a consequence, marijuana products from different strains will have different safety, biological, pharmacological, and toxicological profiles. Thus, when considering all Cannabis strains together, because of the varying chemical constituents, reproducing consistent standardized doses is not possible. Additionally, smoking marijuana currently has not been shown to allow delivery of consistent and reproducible doses.
Memory loss. Bad sign. Long term memory hit. Bad sign also.
Think whatever you want queerbait - If I was a current user, I would not have any problem admitting it. So have another shot of Sterno you drunken sot. One does not need to be a "druggie" to oppose your holy jihad on marijuana and laugh at your worship of fed.gov. Here's a story about some of your "hero" drug warrior cops in Chicago. Code Of Silence Took Ugly Turn In Chicago Police Corruption Case Guess what - it's not from the Free Thought Project either. Your link is to a post by ConservingFreedom ConservingFreedom posted on 2016- 10-07 16:30:53 ET
Comments (56 - 71) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestRemember what your own government says: Cannabis has been used for medicinal purposes for thousands of years.
Here, we must read § 542 with a view to its place in the overall statutory scheme for marijuana regulation, namely the CSA and the State Medical Marijuana Laws. The CSA prohibits the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of any marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 844(a).[4] The State Medical Marijuana Laws are those state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. Thus, the CSA prohibits what the State Medical Marijuana Laws permit.
[5] The prior observation should also serve as a warning. To be clear, § 542 does not provide immunity from prosecution for federal marijuana offenses. The CSA prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime. The federal government can prosecute such offenses for up to five years after they occur. See 18 U.S.C. § 3282. Congress currently restricts the government from spending certain funds to prosecute certain individuals. But Congress could restore funding tomorrow, a year from now, or four years from now, and the government could then prosecute individuals who committed offenses while the government lacked funding. Moreover, a new president will be elected soon, and a new administration could shift enforcement priorities to place greater emphasis on prosecuting marijuana offenses. Nor does any state law “legalize” possession, distribution, or manufacture of marijuana. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, state laws cannot permit what federal law prohibits. U.S. Const. art VI, cl. 2. Thus, while the CSA remains in effect, states cannot actually authorize the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana. Such activity remains prohibited by federal law.
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Steve Mcintosh,
Defendant-Appellant.
D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00016-MMC-3
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Iane Lovan,
Defendant-Appellant.
D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00294-LJO-SKO-1
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Somphane Malathong,
Defendant-Appellant.
D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00294-LJO-SKO-3
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Vong Southy,
Defendant-Appellant.
D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00294-LJO-SKO-2
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Khamphou Khouthong,
Defendant-Appellant.
D.C. No.1:13-cr-00294-LJO-SKO-4
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Jerad John kynaston, AKA Jared J. Kynaston, AKA Jerad J. Kynaston; Samuel Michael Doyle, AKA Samuel M. Doyle; Brice Christian Davis, AKA Brice C. Davis; Jayde Dillon Evans, AKA Jayde D. Evans; Tyler Scott Mckinley, AKA Tyler S. McKinley,
Defendants-Appellants.
D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00016-WFN-1
for the Eastern District of Washington
Wm. Fremming Nielsen, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Petitioner,
v.
United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California, Fresno,
Respondent,
Real Party in Interest.
D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00294-LJO-SKO-1
Petitioner,
v.
United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California, Fresno,
Respondent,
Real Party in Interest.
D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00294-LJO-SKO-3
Petitioner,
v.
United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California, Fresno,
Respondent,
Real Party in Interest.
D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00294-LJO-SKO-2
Petitioner,
v.
United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California, Fresno,
Respondent,
Real Party in Interest.
D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00294-LJO-SKO-4
San Francisco, California
and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.
None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such
States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.
In Carson, the Supreme Court considered whether section 1292(a)(1) permitted appeal from an order denying the parties' joint motion for approval of a consent decree that contained an injunction as one of its provisions. Because the order did not, on its face, deny an injunction, an appeal from the order did not fall precisely within the language of section 1292(a)(1). The Court nevertheless permitted the appeal. The Court stated that, while section 1292(a)(1) must be narrowly construed in order to avoid piecemeal litigation, it does permit appeals from orders that have the "practical effect" of denying an injunction, provided that the would-be appellant shows that the order "might have a serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence."
We find nothing in Carson to suggest that the requirement of irreparable injury applies to appeals from orders specifically denying injunctions. Carson merely expanded the scope of appeals that do not fall within the meaning of the statute. Sealaska appeals from the direct denial of a request for an injunction. Carson, therefore, is simply irrelevant.
THE COURT: But remember, your remedy is not because you are upset that the Department of Justice is spending taxpayer money. Your remedy is a dismissal, which is what you are seeking now, is it not?
To "carry out, accomplish; esp.: to give practical effect to and ensure of actual fulfillment by concrete measure." Implement, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2003);
"The aggregate of legislation, judicial precedents, and accepted legal principles; the body of authoritative grounds of judicial and administrative action; esp., the body of rules, standards, and principles that the courts of a particular jurisdiction apply in deciding controversies brought before them."
"1. a. The body of rules, whether proceeding from formal enactment or from custom, which a particular state or community recognizes as binding on its members or subjects. (In this sense usually the law.)."
As the Supreme Court has said (in a case involving precisely the issue of Executive compliance with appropriation laws, although the principle is one of general applicability): "legislative intention, without more, is not legislation." The issue here is not how Congress expected or intended the Secretary to behave, but how it required him to behave, through the only means by which it can (as far as the courts are concerned, at least) require anything—the enactment of legislation. Our focus, in other words, must be upon the text of the appropriation.
#16. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan (#15)
#17. To: ConservingFreedom (#16)
#18. To: Operation 40, nolu chan (#13)
Remember what your own government says: Cannabis has been used for medicinal purposes for thousands of year.
If your government banned chocolate and told you it was bad would you obey?
If the government only “told” me that, then I would not obey. The immediate effects of taking chocolate include rapid heart beat, disorientation, lack of physical coordination, often followed by depression or sleepiness. Some users suffer panic attacks or anxiety. And the problem did not end there since according to scientific studies one of the active 400 chemicals in chocolate remains in the body for weeks or even months.
Then I would stay the Hell completely away from chocolate….
#19. To: Gatlin (#18)
Then I would stay the Hell completely away from chocolate….
#20. To: ConservingFreedom, A K A Stone, nolu chan (#16)
(Edited)
A K A Stone, does the site software support a post length limit...
#21. To: A K A Stone, ConservingFreedom, Deckard, Gatlin (#16)
A K A Stone, does the site software support a post length limit, and if so is that something you'd consider? Some idiots can't stop themselves from posting the phone book.
Massachusetts is among five states that will vote on whether to fully legalize marijuana later this year.
Here, we must read § 542 with a view to its place in the overall statutory scheme for marijuana regulation, namely the CSA and the State Medical Marijuana Laws. The CSA prohibits the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of any marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 844(a).[4] The State Medical Marijuana Laws are those state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. Thus, the CSA prohibits what the State Medical Marijuana Laws permit.
[5] The prior observation should also serve as a warning. To be clear, § 542 does not provide immunity from prosecution for federal marijuana offenses. The CSA prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime. The federal government can prosecute such offenses for up to five years after they occur. See 18 U.S.C. § 3282. Congress currently restricts the government from spending certain funds to prosecute certain individuals. But Congress could restore funding tomorrow, a year from now, or four years from now, and the government could then prosecute individuals who committed offenses while the government lacked funding. Moreover, a new president will be elected soon, and a new administration could shift enforcement priorities to place greater emphasis on prosecuting marijuana offenses. Nor does any state law “legalize” possession, distribution, or manufacture of marijuana. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, state laws cannot permit what federal law prohibits. U.S. Const. art VI, cl. 2. Thus, while the CSA remains in effect, states cannot actually authorize the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana. Such activity remains prohibited by federal law.
Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812. As a Schedule I controlled substance, marijuana, under federal law, is deemed to have "no currently accepted medical use in treatment[, and] [t]here is a lack of accepted safety for use of the . . . substance under medical supervision." Id. § 812(b)(1)(B) & (C).[1]
In enacting the CSA, Congress classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug. 21 U. S. C. § 812(c). This preliminary classification was based, in part, on the recommendation of the Assistant Secretary of HEW “that marihuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway.” Schedule I drugs are categorized as such because of their high potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment. § 812(b)(1). These three factors, in varying gradations, are also used to categorize drugs in the other four schedules. For example, Schedule II substances also have a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence, but unlike Schedule I drugs, they have a currently accepted medical use. § 812(b)(2). By classifying marijuana as a Schedule I drug, as opposed to listing it on a lesser schedule, the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana became a criminal offense, with the sole exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration preapproved research study. §§823(f), 841(a)(1), 844(a); see also United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U. S. 483, 490 (2001).
First, the fact that marijuana is used “for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician” cannot itself serve as a distinguishing factor. Id., at 1229. The CSA designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose; in fact, by characterizing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, Congress expressly found that the drug has no acceptable medical uses.
#22. To: Gatlin, ConservingFreedom, A K A Stone (#20)
The site software has a post length limit. I have never seen nolu chan come anywhere close to exceeding it. I tried to post an extra long document one time that was pertinent and was unable to do so.
#23. To: Deckard (#12)
#24. To: Roscoe (#23)
#25. To: ConservingFreedom (#16)
#26. To: Gatlin, Operation 40, nolu chan (#18)
However, if the government show scientific study results
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#27. To: nolu chan, ConservingFreedom, Operation 40 (#21)
Stone, while you are at it, perhaps you can address ConservingFreedom's Deckard's supposed right to false speech issue. It seems the drug idiots here post several articles a day trying to sell the crap that this or that state has, or will, legalize marijuana.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#28. To: Roscoe (#23)
(Edited)
She wasn't home.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#29. To: nolu chan (#21)
(Edited)
ConservingFreedom: A K A Stone, does the site software support a post length limit, and if so is that something you'd consider? Some idiots can't stop themselves from posting the phone book.
Stone, while you are at it, perhaps you can also address the drug idiots supposed right to immunity from suspension for something a valiant anti- drug warrior was suspended for. It seems the drug idiots here are hypocrites when they cry out to you and ridicule someone in order to get posting privileges suspended yet they will remain calmly silent when one of the drug idiots does exactly the same thing. #3. To: […] (#1)
Someone should put a bullet through his unpatriotic Paultard like cop hating forehead …
[…]
GrandIsland posted on 2016-09-01 23:10:26 ET
Cleanup on aisle 3 please.
This poster is going to be your downfall.
Fred Mertz posted on 2016-09-02 3:47:27 ET
[…]
Pretty pathetic that Stone bans the good posters yet allows this repulsive tool to remain.
FireIsland is rapidly spiraling out of control.
[…]
Deckard posted on 2016-09-02 7:39:07 ET
[…]
Not a big fan of the first amendment, are you Sparky?
Or is it just those who disagree with you who you want to kill?
Deckard posted on 2016-09-02 7:45:18 ET
Suspended for obvious reasons.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-09-02 8:28:50 ET
I put you back on the roster.
This isn't the place to wish death on people.
We are a peaceful lot.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-09-17 10:43:07 ET
An Oklahoma police department has received several death threats …
Let's hope that someone makes good on that threat.
[…]
Deckard posted on 2016-10-06 12:45:36 ET
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=48083&Disp=18#C18.
Deckard: Let's hope that someone makes good on that threat.
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=48083&Disp=19#C19.
#30. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan, Deckard, Fred Mertz, GrandIsland, ConservingFreedom (#29)
Addition to the Ping List for Post #29.
#31. To: Gatlin (#29)
The “death wish” you made on this Oklahoma police officer is a despicable form of extreme speech. It is far beyond the pale of civility with a gross imposition exceeding the norms in public discourse.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#32. To: Deckard, GrandIsland, A K A Stone (#31)
The problem with ass-kissers like you is that you see cops as gods who can do no wrong and are exempt from criticism.
#33. To: Gatlin (#32)
You need to realize that hoping for the death of an Oklahoma police officer because he shot a dog is not normal.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#34. To: Deckard (#33)
(Edited)
You need to realize that a cop shooting a dog that was not a threat to him (behind a fence) and then lying about the encounter is something that only a psychopath would do.
#35. To: Deckard, Operation 40, nolu chan (#26)
#36. To: Deckard (#28)
Her property was still raided.
#37. To: Deckard (#27)
[Deckard #27] The fact is - Massachusetts as well as several other states are considering legalizing cannabis, your incessant whining to the contrary.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Nor does any state law “legalize” possession, distribution, or manufacture of marijuana. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, state laws cannot permit what federal law prohibits.
Here, we must read § 542 with a view to its place in the overall statutory scheme for marijuana regulation, namely the CSA and the State Medical Marijuana Laws. The CSA prohibits the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of any marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 844(a).[4] The State Medical Marijuana Laws are those state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. Thus, the CSA prohibits what the State Medical Marijuana Laws permit.
[5] The prior observation should also serve as a warning. To be clear, § 542 does not provide immunity from prosecution for federal marijuana offenses. The CSA prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime. The federal government can prosecute such offenses for up to five years after they occur. See 18 U.S.C. § 3282. Congress currently restricts the government from spending certain funds to prosecute certain individuals. But Congress could restore funding tomorrow, a year from now, or four years from now, and the government could then prosecute individuals who committed offenses while the government lacked funding. Moreover, a new president will be elected soon, and a new administration could shift enforcement priorities to place greater emphasis on prosecuting marijuana offenses. Nor does any state law “legalize” possession, distribution, or manufacture of marijuana. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, state laws cannot permit what federal law prohibits. U.S. Const. art VI, cl. 2. Thus, while the CSA remains in effect, states cannot actually authorize the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana. Such activity remains prohibited by federal law.
Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812. As a Schedule I controlled substance, marijuana, under federal law, is deemed to have "no currently accepted medical use in treatment[, and] [t]here is a lack of accepted safety for use of the . . . substance under medical supervision." Id. § 812(b)(1)(B) & (C).[1]
In enacting the CSA, Congress classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug. 21 U. S. C. § 812(c). This preliminary classification was based, in part, on the recommendation of the Assistant Secretary of HEW “that marihuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway.” Schedule I drugs are categorized as such because of their high potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment. § 812(b)(1). These three factors, in varying gradations, are also used to categorize drugs in the other four schedules. For example, Schedule II substances also have a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence, but unlike Schedule I drugs, they have a currently accepted medical use. § 812(b)(2). By classifying marijuana as a Schedule I drug, as opposed to listing it on a lesser schedule, the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana became a criminal offense, with the sole exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration preapproved research study. §§823(f), 841(a)(1), 844(a); see also United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U. S. 483, 490 (2001).
First, the fact that marijuana is used “for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician” cannot itself serve as a distinguishing factor. Id., at 1229. The CSA designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose; in fact, by characterizing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, Congress expressly found that the drug has no acceptable medical uses.
#38. To: nolu chan (#37)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#39. To: GrandIsland (#25)
"A K A Stone, does the site software support a post length limit, and if so is that something you'd consider? Some idiots can't stop themselves from posting the phone book."
#40. To: Deckard (#38)
Have you ever had an original thought in your life?
Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812. As a Schedule I controlled substance, marijuana, under federal law, is deemed to have "no currently accepted medical use in treatment[, and] [t]here is a lack of accepted safety for use of the . . . substance under medical supervision." Id. § 812(b)(1)(B) & (C).[1]
Turning to federal firearms provisions, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) no person "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" may "possess . . . or . . . receive any firearm or ammunition." In addition, it is unlawful for "any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person . . . is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." Id. § 922(d)(3).
#41. To: Gatlin (#35)
(Edited)
The Free Thought Project is a highly biased source toward liberal causes.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#42. To: nolu chan, DeckardI (#40)
Have you ever considered posting truthful things?
#43. To: Gatlin (#42)
(Edited)
I truly believe that his pot-scorched brain
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#44. To: Deckard (#43)
I HATE corrupt, tyrannical government ...
#45. To: Gatlin (#44)
(Edited)
You have decided that you can solely decide when the government is tyrannical
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#46. To: Deckard, Gatlin (#43)
I haven't used any illegal drugs for decades, you pontificating poltroon.
#47. To: Deckard (#0)
Police hit the home by helicopter — to take a plant used for an elderly woman’s arthritis.
Daily Hampshire Gazette
Staff Writer
Friday, September 30, 2016 Holcomb said he was at his mother’s home eating a late lunch with his sister when they heard whirring blades and looked up to see a military-style helicopter circling the property, with two men crouching in an open door and holding a device that he suspects was a thermal imager to detect marijuana plants.
#48. To: nolu chan (#46)
(Edited)
I haven't used any illegal drugs for decades, you pontificating poltroon.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#49. To: Deckard (#48)
I have not used any form of cannabis or any other mind-altering drug.
#50. To: Roscoe (#49)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#51. To: Deckard (#50)
fed.gov
#52. To: Gatlin, Deckard, Operation40 (#35)
Obama’s Drug Czar Admits Govt Suppressed Research Showing the Benifits of Cannabis
Your link leads to an article by The Free Thought Project.
Botticelli confirmed suspicions that the feds have purposefully kept marijuana from being thoroughly researched for positive health benefits when he said, “I do think it’s a somewhat fair criticism that the government hasn’t wholly supported research to really investigate what’s the potential therapeutic value.”
Botticelli was raised in Waterford, New York, in a family with a history of alcoholism. He received a Bachelor's degree in psychology from Siena College and a Masters in Education from St. Lawrence University. He has no formal professional educational credentials in addiction medicine, mental health, or public health.
Status of Research Into the Medical Uses for Marijuana
#53. To: Roscoe, Deckard (#49)
I have not used any form of cannabis or any other mind-altering drug.
Previous research suggests smoking marijuana daily may affect short-term memory and that even casual use of marijuana can lead to brain changes. Now, another study shows that teenagers who smoke regularly but then kick the habit in a couple of years may see their long-term memory take a hit too.
#54. To: Gatlin (#53)
(Edited)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#55. To: Deckard (#54)
Here's a story about some of your "hero" drug warrior cops in Chicago.
Guess what, stupid – it’s not to a story about some drug warrior cops in Chicago….either.
Code Of Silence Took Ugly Turn In Chicago Police Corruption Case.
Guess what - it's not from the Free Thought Project either.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]