A blog about News.
Member Since: February 13, 2008 Last Signed In: November 23, 2009 Profile Views: 20025 Blog Views: 1946184 Deputies say Frazier Park deaths don't appear connected Boron man arrested for allegedly shooting at neighbor Police to hold checkpoint Wednesday, somewhere in town CHP warns Thanksgiving drivers, will start maximum enforcement Wednesday Wreck injures two, slows Highway 99 traffic early this morning Prison inmate released Sunday, carjacks vehicle in Rosedale same day Arrest log for Nov. 22 Arrest log for Nov. 21 Arrest log for Nov. 20 High-speed chase under way February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 |
|
|
U.S. Attorney General says no more raids on marijuana dispensaries
The controversial and often confusing issue of the legality of medical marijuana dispensaries may have just received some clarification this week following remarks made by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. At a news conference Wednesday, Holder seemed to say the Drug Enforcement Administration would end its raids on state-approved medical marijuana dispensaries. Several raids in Kern County in 2007 prompted all marijuana dispensaries in the county to close. Owners said at the time that the risk of lengthy prison sentences and massive fines was too much for them to remain in business. That could now change. The Drug Enforcement Administration has always led raids on local pot shops. Local law enforcement provide officers or deputies to support the raids, but generally don’t initiate them on their own. Sheriff Donny Youngblood said he hadn’t heard Holder’s statement. He did say, however, that the attorney general doesn’t write the law and that unless the U.S. Supreme Court or Congress changes the law he’s not sure what impact Holder’s statement will have. Even if the federal government no longer targets pot shops, local law enforcement will step in if the shops are violating state law, Police Chief Bill Rector said. For example, the shops aren’t allowed to make a profit. The attorney general’s comments were good news, however, to Jeff Clark and other supporters of medical marijuana. Clark, president of the Upper Kern County chapter of NORML, a pro-legalization group, said he’s requesting Kern County supervisors to allow 24 pot shops to open within the county. He estimated there are 30,000 medical marijuana patients in the county. “We voted this (state law) in and they need to follow state legislation and allow shops to open in Kern County,” Clark said. District Attorney Ed Jagels said his office has periodically prosecuted people who have had such large amounts of marijuana that it couldn’t possibly have been for medical use. If what Holder said is actually going to happen, it wouldn’t impact the prosecutor’s office because they target people who aren’t obeying state law, he said. They do not prosecute federal crimes. “I haven’t seen these comments, but if what you’re saying is accurate then it sounds like the Obama administration is saying they won’t do their duty and enforce federal law,” Jagels said. “Given the constituency that elected Obama, I’m not surprised.” -- Breaking News Team reporter Jason Kotowski 25 comments from 11 users
1
posted by
VirgilAnderson
on Feb 27, 2009 at 04:11 PM
Jagels said. “Given the constituency that elected Obama, I’m not surprised.” I wonder what he means by that? "I haven’t seen these comments, but if what you’re saying is accurate then it sounds like the Obama administration is saying they won’t do their duty and enforce federal law," Apparently, he does not listen to the morning news either. --virgil
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Feb 27, 2009 at 04:26 PM
Way to insult the majority of Americans Jagels! I wonder what this means for the people who are currently going through the legal system for the dispensaries? posted by
VirgilAnderson
on Feb 27, 2009 at 04:30 PM
("... it sounds like the Obama administration is saying they won’t do their duty and enforce federal law.." ). He appears not to agree with the U.S. Supreme court decision on this, too ... http://www.safeaccessnow.or... WhAT a happy and honest guy Jagels is. --virgil posted by
erikbako
on Feb 27, 2009 at 11:44 PM
If we're going to ignore a federal law, then maybe that law should be changed. Let the states decide on the issue, and if it decides in the favor of allowing medical marijuana, then leave it be. Largesse, that is what is required now. Lots of drugs and free money to get us through these troubling times. posted by
CurtDalton
on Feb 28, 2009 at 01:49 AM
Hummmm, can we decide for ourselves which federal laws we don't want enforced? I can think of several I have no use for so, does that mean it's perfectly OK for me to ignore the law?
posted by
NancyII
on Feb 28, 2009 at 01:53 AM
Apparently so Curt. There's realy no need to obey those pesky law you disagree with. The pot heads must be dancing in the street over this one.
posted by
VirgilAnderson
on Feb 28, 2009 at 07:55 AM
" can we decide for ourselves which federal laws we don't want enforced"
To all you political libertarians out there, only the onerous and misdirected laws of illegal substance interdiction -you know, laws against smoking marijuana. --virgil posted by
VirgilAnderson
on Feb 28, 2009 at 08:05 AM
By the way, what really does it mean when the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case involving that very question of what to do when a state law conflicts with Federal law? You just don't ingnore the state law, do you? I mean, you don't ignore the Supreme Court ruling on that law. That would be unconstitutional and illegal. --virgil posted by
NancyII
on Feb 28, 2009 at 08:09 AM
Today marijuana, tomorrow cocaine, next....the world. What a grand place it will be. All those stoners, crackheads, junkies in YOUR backyard. Watch them catch them unaware just having fun and bothering not a soul. (sing that to the tune of Teddy Bear Picnic) while they load up in your neighborhood park. Fun, fun, fun, for everyone. posted by
VirgilAnderson
on Feb 28, 2009 at 08:14 AM
Nancy, They're already here( loading up in the neighborhodd park - they never left) ... maybe tomorrow we'll be better at preventing the harm chemical dependency creates. --virgil
posted by
NancyII
on Feb 28, 2009 at 08:14 AM
virgil, tell it to the judge. posted by
VirgilAnderson
on Feb 28, 2009 at 08:15 AM
gotta go ... my daughter's 4-H presentation on the Viola. --virgil posted by
Lingtaowoo
on Feb 28, 2009 at 08:16 AM
The Attorney General doesn't make the laws--his job is to enforce the laws..this subject is far from over....reguardless if the State says it's cool to start selling weed again... posted by
NancyII
on Feb 28, 2009 at 08:17 AM
Ah but virgil, with your help they can lay around in the parks loaded legally. Won't that be fun. Then the work gangs can do some real work cleaning up the needles, crack pipes and just general...you know..stuff. posted by
tkozy
on Feb 28, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Nancy, Public intoxication, no matter the substance, is still illegal . What the AG said does not change that. He in fact highlights the importance of local rule. Something I would think the republican conservative would embrace. Stop making up stories and stick to the facts.
posted by
VirgilAnderson
on Feb 28, 2009 at 01:27 PM
"The pot heads must be dancing in the street over this one." Nancy, If I knew you, I'd send you a hemp made tee shirt. --virgil posted by
VirgilAnderson
on Feb 28, 2009 at 01:35 PM
This is bigger than a petty little cluster of flowers. Paper is made from the stuff too. I think it was two years ago the DEA involved itself in South Dakota and that state's wanting to loosen regulations on growing hemp for it's textile potential ... another cash crop, but not for the plant's flowers. --virgil
posted by
VirgilAnderson
on Feb 28, 2009 at 01:59 PM
Though, I do suppose, this means less money for watching marijuana smoker operations ... --virgil
posted by
VirgilAnderson
on Feb 28, 2009 at 02:09 PM
posted by
NancyII
on Feb 28, 2009 at 03:19 PM
Tk, in the first place my comment was addressed to virgil over something we've been going back and forth over for ages In the second place if you didn't have your head so far up your self inflated ego you'd have seen my reference was to continuing to make drugs legal one by one and NOT what concerned the AG announcement. You continue to misconstrue my posts and twist my words and all the time think you're so very clever. What you don't see is that others are capable of seeing through your games just as I do. I don't know what your purpose is but you are only making a fool of yourself. If you want to address what I SAID and not what you want it to say or mean that's fine but it's time you got off my case with your lies and distortions. posted by
dougglendower
on Feb 28, 2009 at 04:37 PM
Billions to try and crush Big Tobacco because of the dangers of smoking, not the least of which is hot gasses filling the lungs, and we're moving to legalize smoking dope. Wow. posted by
WardCleaver
on Feb 28, 2009 at 04:49 PM
R J Reynolds has suffered some serious defeats in the civil courtroom from people who have proven their dead husbands/wives died as a result of the dangers of cigarettes. Guess the same will happen later if marijuana is legalized the same as tobacco. I think the case would be titled something like John Smith vs. Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and 1000 unnamed others. posted by
lanabuford
on Feb 28, 2009 at 05:40 PM
When you start losing the fight....Just get mad. posted by
erikbako
on Mar 1, 2009 at 12:19 AM
Remember, laws are flexible, like the laws for jaywalking. Smoking pot is like jaywalking - a lot of people do it, and it's a lot less dangerous. Until you turn to crack, and then your friends call you gay. posted by
witterpitters
on Mar 1, 2009 at 09:06 AM
Hmmmmmmmmmm we spend millions upon millions to "just say NO" and now are going to say ............. oops I meant YES!? Cigarettes are verboten but go ahead a light up your head banging pot? How many drop outs do you think there will be in the high schools (other then the art classes) when/if the powers that be - who are higher then a kite - make it an "anything goes" non-law? How many teachers/counselors/administrators will be leading the kids down the prim rose path to "enlightenment"? Oh sure the "law" will put an age limit on it just as they have for alcohol and cigarettes............how many below that age limit are drinking/smoking anyway? WhAT a happy and honest guy Jagels is. Jagels is not particularly my favorite person. That said, he is right on with this one. LANA: "just get mad". Damn straight! If you think in your wildest dreams that this legalization of pot is not going to be detrimental to young people and society as a whole - then YOU must be high. You think alcohol is a problem with people driving - just wait until the alcoholics and the druggies are all on the street. It will be a freakin' war zone.
1
 Loading Stories
Advertisement |
