rich420

Source: Drug Agents Raid SF Medical Marijuana Clinic - cbs5.com

__________________

troublemaker_42

Says it all right there...the DEA has said they won't bust dispensaries that are IN COMPLIANCE with the law. Any dispensary that bends the rules can expect trouble. In order for legit dispensaries to operate successfully and legally, the non-legit must be removed. Its that whole "one bad apple ruining the whole bunch" way of thinking. Obama's staments didn't mean weed was legal, or that any dispensary could do as they please. I'm thinking this was a message to other dispensaries to stay in line or face the consequences.

__________________
Ted Nugent: "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."


If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?

Yana Usdi

That might be the case, troublemaker, but given the record of the DEA in the past I don't find any comfort in the idea that they won't say what law they think he broke. They just claim he must have broken one of them. Maybe it's a valid bust but I'd feel a lot more comfortable with that idea if they weren't so reluctant to say why they even raided him or what law State he violated.

Until they offer more I say we give the club, not the DEA, the benefit of the doubt. San Francisco Department of Public Health spokesperson said they were in good standing so it doesn't seem to have been violated there or that they know of.

troublemaker_42

its common practice not to reveal charges in ongoing investigations. I see nothing fishy about that. Revealing too much information jeopardizes future potential busts, and the govt sees that as a bigger priority than informing each and every one of us what is going on. AS far as the dispensaries go, I'd be willing to bet they are monitored more closely buy the DEA than the City of San Fran, and given San Fran's overtly liberal stance on...well...damn near everything...I'm sure what constituted a violation differs a bit between the two groups. Which group would you expect to be more lenient...the City of San Fran, or the DEA?

I see no reason to assume the worst, when Obaam only pledged to protect those dispensaries that choose to follow the letter of the law. Those that don't are still wide open to prosecution, as this shows. Obama has been vocal in his support to mmj enforcement being left to the states, and has assured the public legit places wouldn't be raided. At this point, he is either approving raids on shady dispensaries, has no control of the govt agencies he supposedly leads, or he lied to us...again. Either way, I'm not remotely suprised.

Yana Usdi

With most any agency other than the DEA I'd have no disagreement, but this is the group of geniuses who went after Tommy Chong and extorted him into a prison cell so they wouldn't prosecute his wife and kids. Over something he had no personal involvement in, just his name was on it, and their own records show it was a personal strike at him to get even for his movies. We've had problems with a LOT that they've done over the years, not just with their actions but also with their honesty.

It's not a matter in this case of not trusting law enforcement. It's just not trusting them in particular. Their record bought them that part and in this case asking for a State or local authority to say they might have a point seems reasonable. Lacking that, they earned the doubt and questions.

troublemaker_42

Thats like saying the office of the President has earned inherent distrust because of the actions of George W. Bush. "Well, the president has a history of fucking things up, so chances are, this one will be no different". What you say about not trsuting the DEA could be easily extended to the office of President..... after all the President has a "history" of fighting wars without basis, torturing prisoners, spying on American citizens, (or, at the very least, condoning such activity) and other assorted debauchery. If the Bush Administration did something shady, it only stands to reason that the Obama administration will follow suit, right? After all, govt agencies and officals are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past, right? If we held every agency forever responsible for their previous mistakes, there'd be no reason to trsut any government offical at any time, becasue EVERY agency has had some monumental fuckups in their past. Does that mean we should contantly second guess and distrsut every govt official?


Oh yeah..... I already DO!

Whoever, you failed to address my last bit of pondering in my previous post--In your opinion, what does this raid mean? Is obama declaring open season on shady dispensaries, does he lack the control needed to oversee and control (rein in) the DEA, or is he flat out lying to us when he said legit dispensaries wouldn't be targeted, and that he wanted the states to figure out things on their own? I find none of the scenarios the least bit hard to believe. I'd like to think the days of our leaders lying to us on a daily basis were over, but I've yet to see anything that backs that assertion.

Yana Usdi

That's not the case and you know it, TM. Bush was an individual. In the DEA are we looking at an individual, or a decades long pattern of them pushing the limits? It's damned hard to find where anyone got in trouble for anything, granted, but they didn't get in trouble for the Chong thing either did they? It's a decades long and institutional pattern of behavior, not an isolated incident that can be written off as simply as U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan. That's the equivalent of Gorge Bush in your example,or Ashcroft who she worked for. Removing them might have prevented that case, but not the pattern.

I dropped my LEAP tag recently because I'm debating too much other than law enforcement but if you think you're having a "I hate the cops" debate I don't think you remember what work I've done for the last few years. Talking to them was a main point of getting out there and I had a fair bit of luck at it. Cops, at least in private and on their own time, are easier to talk to about the drug war than the average Democrat is. Weird, but true. The fact is that the drug czars office and the DEA have an institutional record that they've got to deal with before they can ask anyone to trust them. Simple as that, and from their own records. Not individual records, but institutional.

Heck, had to edit to answer the last part I've no idea what the raid means and personally I don't care all that much, I've said before that pot isn't my main interest in the drug war and I don't live in California anyway. I'm interested in the same sense that I was when Marc Emery got busted I guess, it's news and it matters in a larger sense, but I've got no personal interest in it or in Obama. Personally my concern is that he'll turn into another Clinton and he wasn't good for us in the drug war or other places, too willing to compromise to get other things he wanted and made some "good for the bad" deals that turned out to have more bad than good. I've got no clue what he'll do, willing to compromise could mean anything, good or bad. We'll see.

troublemaker_42

WHAT?!?!?!
Not once did I accuse you of hating cops. Don't put words in my mouth i never said or even implied. I don't see how you could even assume I meant anything like that from what I posted, but whatever.... I don't think you hate cops though. Thats just silly. You never wrote anything that implied you did, and I never wrote anything remotely accusing you of fostering such feelings. To assume that I thought as much shows how little you really know me. If I think something about someone, I'm all about stating it openly and clearly, as my posting history, for better or worse, will attest to.

As far as the President being one man, true enough. However, he has an entire cabinent, making it an organization, with Obama as the figurehead. No one man"has ever been the sole person in the office of the President, as far as I can tell. The office of the Presidency is as much an organization as any other. No one man has been the complete Office of the Presidency,at least as far as I can tell....and YOU know THAT as well. Bush didn't act alone in committing his wrongs, no more than any President can soley be responsible for the actions taken by their administration. While they are ultimately "in charge" (at least in public) theres plenty of voices whispering in his ear about how to conduct himself. To deny that is the equivalent of saying Dick Cheney had nothing to do with Bush's policies. Bush was a moron, but he had PLENTY of morons telling him what his next move should be. While there is only one president, theres a good manyn in his immediate presence that influence and shape what he does.

Yana Usdi

Geeze, too much coffee? We've been friends for years now, you know I don't put words in peoples mouths. I simply pointed out that there's no motivation other than their own record for my lack of trust. You said earlier that you see no reason not to give them the benefit of the doubt. I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I could have said it better but you've seen me debate long enough to know that wasn't what I meant.

Partly my fault, I could have said it better and that's a part of why I don't do activism anymore, found myself in too many of these pointless things and wasn't keeping my temper as well as I used to, but damn. You know me.

Fine, an entire organization then. I don't trust neocons, a bit. That's based on their own record too Or the dems or repubs. I've mentioned that in other threads here I think. We've got a faith problem in this country. Faith in nationalism, in government, in the press, in all kinds of things that aren't working out too well. The part we forgot was that we had to be involved too, otherwise people with selfish interests start to take over. Oops.

I'm not much of a follower in general. I want to see some results, I don't care who came up with them.

MestUp7

This smells like bullshit to me...mainly because of this quote:

"They are well-respected and have a good reputation in the medical marijuana community," said Hallanin, who added the business has never been raided in its five year existence.

This seems very similar to the whole reasonable cause to search your car thing if a cop smells it. The DEA will simply claim they had reason to believe they were violating state laws, even if they weren't.