Posted on 08/28/2005 9:29:35 AM PDT by Wolfie
CHP Revises Policy on Pot Seizures
Sacramento -- The California Highway Patrol has ordered its officers to stop confiscating medical marijuana during routine traffic stops, a victory for patients hoping to win broader acceptance of the controversial medicine from balky police departments around the state.
Highway Patrol officials sent out a bulletin last week to field commanders spelling out the policy shift, which would allow patients to travel on California's highways with up to 8 ounces of marijuana as long as they have a certified user identification card or documented physician's approval.
Patient advocates say the change will make the state's highways a "safe haven" for those who use marijuana with a physician's permission. They also hope the shift by the CHP sets an example for law enforcement agencies around California.
"This is going to send a very clear message: The constitutionality of patients needs to be protected," said Steph Sherer, executive director of Americans for Safe Access, a marijuana patients group that sued the CHP to force the policy change. "Our hope is this will ripple around the state."
Lt. Joe Whiteford, a CHP spokesman, called the policy shift "a revision" needed in part because of confusion among rank-and-file officers over a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
The high court declared in June that medical marijuana laws in a dozen states, including California, don't protect patients or suppliers from federal prosecution. But the ruling did not sweep away state medical marijuana laws and had no effect on local and state police such as the CHP.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
No matter what the issue, it is a good thing when states AND their LEAs come to realize the FedGov is their creation and servant, not their master.
I wonder if the state is going to assist marijuana patients in paying for their "medicine" as they would any other medicine.
A hurricane of common sense sweeps through Sacramento!
Then we could all pay less federal tax - Yes!
I wonder if the state is going to assist marijuana patients in paying for their "medicine" as they would any other medicine.
Even if that is the case - cannabis is one of the most cost efficient substances on earth. That is one of the reasons for it's legendary popularity. One little seed grows into several ounces of usable medicine or mild intoxicant - no complicated chemistry or risk of death.
Fine, And let the FedGov live without that state's tax money, too. Would you go for that deal?
Then why are medical marijuana patients paying more for legal marijuana than for illegal marijuana?
"A buddy of mine in So. Cal saw an ad in the L.A. Weekly a few days ago for a doc that gives away marijuana buyers' licenses/cards like candy, so he went down to his office to check it out. The doc wasn't in -- just the receptionist. ....And she didn't ask him one question about any health condition, not surprisingly. Took his cash though -- $100 for a license. ...and made him sign an agreement that stated that he was under the direct care of the doc in question."
"Conveniently enough, right upstairs in the same building (in the mid-Wilshire district) was a marijuana buyers' club. (The receptionist informed him of this, of course). Highest quality bud imaginable, he tells me. ....from nearly every ganga-growning nation on earth. Young people with white lab coats behind the counters. Street prices -- $480/oz."
-- Mr. Mojo, www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1331981/posts?page=132#132
So much for California's "Compassionate" Use Program, huh?
That's not the issue.
Of course, in California all marijuana is is medical marijuana.
Of course it is. The ridiculousness of your position is that there is no "federal money" - only money that comes from the citizens of states. So if the federal government subverts federalism by withholding money, so should the states.
Assume this story is true. What California wants to do about it should be California's decision.
$480/oz? - MUST BE GOOD S*IT - to quote George Carlin (that works out to like 25.00 a joint). It is pretty funny and ironic; if the stuff was legal, it'd probably cost more since it would need to be 'approved' on even more levels. Glad I gave it years ago - it would be an EXPENSIIVE legal habit...
Just the opposite.
If the states subvert the Supremacy Clause, the federal government has no obligation to send them money that won't be spent on the intended purpose.
You want to take this one specific incident and generalize it into a whole different topic. Fine. But you can do it without my participation.
First of all, I posted that story to rebut the claim that marijuana is cheap.
Second, if California's decision doesn't conflict with federal law, of course it's their decision. That's the way the U.S. Constitution is written.
Both the money, and the federal government itself, originates in the states.
The supremacy clause exists independently of the money issue.
If federal drug laws were legitimate, they could rest on the supremacy clause itself, and need no threat of funding cuts. Do you think the governor of California should be clapped in irons for telling his staties to stand down? THAT would bring matters to a head.
Hmmmm. What did they do to George Wallace when he and his staties stood up for states rights in the schoolhouse door? Why I do believe the President of the United States called out the National Guard and was prepared to do just that.
So, to answer your question, yes. He and the other sworn California state officials should be arrested and tried for sedition, if not treason, for violating their oath of office to honor the U.S. Constitution.
In my opinion, of course.
The federal government has no obligtion to send them money at all. Somewhere along the line the idea that it's the job of the federal government to re-distribute money became popular, along with the idea that popularity is sufficient authorization.
Thank you. I have no further questions.
I am no genius -but- I think you're correct!
I know the more educated are aware of this -but- they keep ramming the tax rate thru us. Are we anywhere near that unbearable point where the population has a right -rather- a duty to rebel? Uh- uh- I mean complain that we are being over taxed and poorly represented. /sarcasm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.