incogneato
- 7,177
- 313
But nobody has a problem with me owning guns and having a script for norco.....big pharma's deep pockets in effect
LocalGrowGuy
- 2,497
- 263
I understand that, and that's why I have a red card and not a cpl. Currently, I do not own firearms nor do I plan to as long as I am a patient. I don't see that going away. The risk/reward isn't worth it for me. A felony would prevent me from continuing my career, and I'm not going to risk my future for a gun. I find the hypocrisy frustrating, but it is what it is.
It will be an interesting election season I think. The last time guns took center stage was 2000, right after Columbine. I have mixed feelings about guns, gun violence, protecting my home, getting shot by LEO, etc.
Hanging chads ftw
scoop
- 422
- 143
When LEO came over for doughnuts and coffee in 2007 and I calmed the situation by showing them my med cards ....the next question out of their mouths was "Are there any firearms on the premises"?
I'm not sure where it would have went had I answered YES....but it was definitely a serious concern for them.
I'm not sure where it would have went had I answered YES....but it was definitely a serious concern for them.
incogneato
- 7,177
- 313
I wish I didn't have to choose between the two. I do enjoy hunting/ sport shooting and it is comforting to have the added protection of having firearms. I do agree it's a personal choice same as marijuana but until we can get mj reclassified it is what it is. I have kids so I can't take the decision lightly. When I was young and single I would have winged it and hoped for the best.
incogneato
- 7,177
- 313
My guess is that the visit may have went sour quickly....what caused them to stop by initially?
scoop
- 422
- 143
Teenagers. My oldest son's (RIP) high school GF's little brother saw my plants in my GH....and he and some friends came over a night or so later and ripped me off. they then got caught with pills and weed at school....and one of the 4 confessed the pot came from my house/garden.... which brought po-po running.
In the end....I was cool with them....they were cool with me. They didn't search my house....and only concerned themselves with the GH/etc. Such was a good thing because I had 30 or so plants in the garage bloom room....and a couple of trays of clones just rootin up... yup...it could have soured VERY quickly on many fronts.
In the end....I was cool with them....they were cool with me. They didn't search my house....and only concerned themselves with the GH/etc. Such was a good thing because I had 30 or so plants in the garage bloom room....and a couple of trays of clones just rootin up... yup...it could have soured VERY quickly on many fronts.
incogneato
- 7,177
- 313
I'm sorry to hear you lost your son(if I read that right?) I guess you can't control every circumstance so its best to be in line with the law.
LocalGrowGuy
- 2,497
- 263
Better safe than sorry. I typically have an 'ask for forgiveness not permission' philosophy but not when there is so much on the line.
It's scary to me that law enforcement is asking our legislature to slow the fuck down with the mj rule changes. The very ones who are enforcing this shit don't even know what's legal and what's not. I guess if they fling enough shit some of it will stick.
grayarea
- 1,565
- 163
Lol i always ask for permission for a yes first before i say yes. Never got forgiveness b4.
LocalGrowGuy
- 2,497
- 263
Yeah, about that reclassification thing...
Marijuana to remain illegal under federal law, DEA says
-from kusa.com
Marijuana advocates who hoped the cascade of states moving to legalize medical marijuana would soften the federal stance on the drug faced disappointment Thursday as the Drug Enforcement Administration announced its decision to keep marijuana illegal for any purpose.
Marijuana will remain a Schedule 1 substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Substances in Schedule 1 are determined by the Food and Drug Administration to have no medical use. States that allow marijuana for medical use or legalize recreational use remain in defiance of federal law.
The announcement to be published Friday in the Federal Register relaxes the rules for marijuana research to make it easier for institutions to grow marijuana for scientific study. The DEA currently authorizes just one grow facility in Mississippi.
The decision signals a difficult road ahead for legalization efforts, said Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and a former Obama administration drug advisor. Companies that seek to use marijuana as medicine will have to go through the same rigorous scientific evaluation as traditional pharmaceutical drugs.
"This is a vindication for science and for people who have said to go slow," Sabet said. "I think it’s a bad day for legalization efforts and a good day for scientists."
The DEA's decision ignores the public will and patients' experience with the medical benefits of marijuana, says Tom Angell, chairman of Marijuana Majority, which advocates for removing marijuana from the drug scheduling restrictions. Congress should bar DEA and other federal agencies from interfering with the implementation of state marijuana laws, Angell said.
"President Obama always said he would let science -- and not ideology -- dictate policy, but in this case his administration is upholding a failed drug war approach instead of looking at real, existing evidence that marijuana has medical value," Angell said. "A clear and growing majority of American voters support legalizing marijuana outright and the very least our representatives should do is let states implement their own policies, unencumbered by an outdated ‘Reefer Madness’ mentality that some in law enforcement still choose to cling to."
At least eight states will consider marijuana issues in the November election. Voters in Arizona, California, Massachusetts, Maine and Nevada will consider full legalization. Arkansas and Florida have medical marijuana measures on their ballots. Montana voters will consider a measure to restore the state's medical marijuana law after legislative and judicial actions curtained the law.
Marijuana to remain illegal under federal law, DEA says
-from kusa.com
Marijuana advocates who hoped the cascade of states moving to legalize medical marijuana would soften the federal stance on the drug faced disappointment Thursday as the Drug Enforcement Administration announced its decision to keep marijuana illegal for any purpose.
Marijuana will remain a Schedule 1 substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Substances in Schedule 1 are determined by the Food and Drug Administration to have no medical use. States that allow marijuana for medical use or legalize recreational use remain in defiance of federal law.
The announcement to be published Friday in the Federal Register relaxes the rules for marijuana research to make it easier for institutions to grow marijuana for scientific study. The DEA currently authorizes just one grow facility in Mississippi.
The decision signals a difficult road ahead for legalization efforts, said Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and a former Obama administration drug advisor. Companies that seek to use marijuana as medicine will have to go through the same rigorous scientific evaluation as traditional pharmaceutical drugs.
"This is a vindication for science and for people who have said to go slow," Sabet said. "I think it’s a bad day for legalization efforts and a good day for scientists."
The DEA's decision ignores the public will and patients' experience with the medical benefits of marijuana, says Tom Angell, chairman of Marijuana Majority, which advocates for removing marijuana from the drug scheduling restrictions. Congress should bar DEA and other federal agencies from interfering with the implementation of state marijuana laws, Angell said.
"President Obama always said he would let science -- and not ideology -- dictate policy, but in this case his administration is upholding a failed drug war approach instead of looking at real, existing evidence that marijuana has medical value," Angell said. "A clear and growing majority of American voters support legalizing marijuana outright and the very least our representatives should do is let states implement their own policies, unencumbered by an outdated ‘Reefer Madness’ mentality that some in law enforcement still choose to cling to."
At least eight states will consider marijuana issues in the November election. Voters in Arizona, California, Massachusetts, Maine and Nevada will consider full legalization. Arkansas and Florida have medical marijuana measures on their ballots. Montana voters will consider a measure to restore the state's medical marijuana law after legislative and judicial actions curtained the law.
GrowGod
BANNED!
Supporter
- 8,429
- 313
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
I was hoping for this as this is my job and rescheduled mj would have killed my $flow
LocalGrowGuy
- 2,497
- 263
I don't think your cash flow is going to be negatively impacted, as long as there is more money in illegality than legalization and taxation, and that question has answered itself.
This will never happen as long as we keep putting poor minorities in jail for non-violent offenses. There is no way to replace the income from those who are in the system or on paper, even the idea of re-classifying marijuana would have major implications at nearly every level.
How would current prisoners/offenders have their sentences reduced? How would courts keep the lights on without petty drug crimes? Who pays for the judge, jail, lawyer, probation, substance abuse classes, therapy, if there is nothing preventing certain acts? Those poor cops, the idea of them actually doing real work is incomprehensible. Investigation homicides is tough, stopping and frisking young people for bullshit offenses is easy.
The hypocrisy is maddening considering who holds the patents for cannabinoids as medicine.
-Proves medicinal value contrary to Schedule 1 drug classification by DEA.
https://sites.google.com/site/6630507/
-Fun Excerpt-
In 1988--after reviewing all evidence brought forth in a lawsuit against the government's prohibition of medical marijuana--the DEA's own administrative law judge (Judge Francis Young) wrote:
"The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the Drug Enforcement Administration to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence." Judge Francis Young of the Drug Enforcement Administration went on to say: "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known. In strict medical terms, marijuana is safer than many foods we commonly consume."Judge Young recommended that the DEA allow marijuana to be prescribed as medicine, but the DEA has refused. -Source: US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," [Docket #86-22], (September 6, 1988), p. 57.
edit- I didn't mention the potential losses for those who would try and fail to compete with hemp based products. That lobby has deeeeeeeep pockets.
grayarea
- 1,565
- 163
Its hard to find good hemp products.
LocalGrowGuy
- 2,497
- 263
Well this is fun.
Small Fortune in Seizures
Since 2006, Drug Enforcement Administration groups assigned to 15 major airports have seized more than $203 million in cash.
WASHINGTON — Federal drug agents regularly mine Americans’ travel information to profile people who might be ferrying money for narcotics traffickers — though they almost never use what they learn to make arrests or build criminal cases.
Instead, that targeting has helped the Drug Enforcement Administration seize a small fortune in cash.
DEA agents have profiled passengers on Amtrak trains and nearly every major U.S. airline, drawing on reports from a network of travel-industry informants that extends from ticket counters to back offices, a USA TODAY investigation has found. Agents assigned to airports and train stations singled out passengers for questioning or searches for reasons as seemingly benign as traveling one-way to California or having paid for a ticket in cash.
The DEA surveillance is separate from the vast and widely-known anti-terrorism apparatus that now surrounds air travel, which is rarely used for routine law enforcement. It has been carried out largely without the airlines’ knowledge.
It is a lucrative endeavor, and one that remains largely unknown outside the drug agency. DEA units assigned to patrol 15 of the nation’s busiest airports seized more than $209 million in cash from at least 5,200 people over the past decade after concluding the money was linked to drug trafficking, according to Justice Department records. Most of the money was passed on to local police departments that lend officers to assist the drug agency.
“They count on this as part of the budget,” said Louis Weiss, a former supervisor of the DEA group assigned to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. “Basically, you’ve got to feed the monster.”
In most cases, records show the agents gave the suspected couriers a receipt for the cash — sometimes totaling $50,000 or more, stuffed into suitcases or socks — and sent them on their way without ever charging them with a crime.
The DEA would not comment on how it obtains records of Americans’ domestic travel, or on what scale. But court records and interviews with agents, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not permitted to discuss DEA operations, make clear that it is extensive. In one 2009 court filing, for example, Justice Department lawyers said agents took $44,010 from two people traveling on a train to Denver after picking them out during “a routine review of the computerized travel manifest for Amtrak.”
USA TODAY identified 87 cases in recent years in which the Justice Department went to federal court to seize cash from travelers after agents said they had been tipped off to a suspicious itinerary. Those cases likely represent only a small fraction of the instances in which agents have stopped travelers or seized cash based on their travel patterns, because few such encounters ever make it to court.
Those cases nonetheless offer evidence of the program’s sweep. Filings show agents were able to profile passengers on Amtrak and nearly every major U.S. airline, often without the companies’ consent. “We won’t release that information without a subpoena,” American Airlines spokesman Ross Feinstein said.
By itself, a suspicious itinerary amounts to little more than a tip; it’s not enough evidence to permit agents to detain passengers, search their bags or seize their cash. Instead, agents use it to approach travelers and ask if they would be willing to answer a few questions, a process that often ends with them either asking for permission to search the person’s bags or having a dog sniff them for drugs.
Agents seized $25,000 from Christelle Tillerson’s suitcase in 2014 as she was waiting to board a flight from Detroit to Chicago. The Justice Department said in a court filing that agents became interested in Tillerson after they “received information” that she was headed to Los Angeles on a one-way ticket.
Tillerson told the agents that her boyfriend had withdrawn the money from his U.S. Postal Service retirement account so that she could buy a truck, according to court records. Agents were suspicious; Tillerson was an ex-convict, who had spent time in prison for driving a load of marijuana into the United States from Mexico. She seemed to have little money of her own. And a police dog smelled drugs on the cash.
Agents seized the money, and let Tillerson go. Her lawyer, Cyril Hall, said she was never arrested, or even questioned about whether she could give agents information about traffickers.
A year and a half later — after she produced paperwork showing that much of the money had indeed come from her boyfriend’s retirement fund — the Justice Department agreed to return the money, minus $4,000. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s office in Detroit, Gina Balaya, said prosecutors concluded that “a small percentage of the funds should be forfeited.”
“It was outrageous. It’s still outrageous,” Hall said
Federal law gives the government broad powers to seize cash and other assets if agents have evidence that they are linked to crime. That process, commonly known as asset forfeiture, has come under fire from lawmakers in recent years after complaints that police were using the law as a way to raise money rather than to protect the public or prevent crime.
“Going after someone’s property has nothing to do with protecting them and it has everything to do with going after the money,” said Renée Flaherty, a lawyer for the Institute for Justice, an advocacy group that has battled asset forfeiture cases.
To the DEA, cash seizures are one prong of a broader financial fight against gangs and Mexican cartels, which have reaped huge profits — usually in cash — from selling drugs in the United States. Agents “employ strategies and methods that attack the financial infrastructure of these criminal organizations,” spokesman Russ Baer said, including tracking the couriers they use to transport the money.
Baer said agents receive information from employees at "airlines, bus terminals, car rental agencies, storage facilities, vehicle repair shops, r other businesses." He did not explain why so many suspected couriers are released without charges.
Mining travel records
The DEA came under fire for harvesting travel records two years ago, when Amtrak’s inspector general revealed that agents had paid a secretary $854,460 over nearly two decades in exchange for passenger information. A later investigation by the Justice Department’s inspector general found that the secretary initially looked up reservations only at agents’ request, but quickly “began making queries on his own initiative, looking for indicators that a person might be planning to transport illegal drugs or money on a train,” according to a report obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
Five current and former agents said the DEA has cultivated a wide network of such informants, who are taught to be on the lookout for suspicious itineraries and behavior. Some are paid a percentage if their tips lead to a significant seizure. Records filed in asset seizure cases suggest the drug agency’s informant network is broad enough that agents have been able to profile passengers traveling on most major airlines, including American, Delta, JetBlue, Southwest, United and others.
“Basically, it’s what that Amtrak guy was doing, but at the airport,” said a senior DEA agent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the agency’s use of confidential informants.
Small Fortune in Seizures
Since 2006, Drug Enforcement Administration groups assigned to 15 major airports have seized more than $203 million in cash.
WASHINGTON — Federal drug agents regularly mine Americans’ travel information to profile people who might be ferrying money for narcotics traffickers — though they almost never use what they learn to make arrests or build criminal cases.
Instead, that targeting has helped the Drug Enforcement Administration seize a small fortune in cash.
DEA agents have profiled passengers on Amtrak trains and nearly every major U.S. airline, drawing on reports from a network of travel-industry informants that extends from ticket counters to back offices, a USA TODAY investigation has found. Agents assigned to airports and train stations singled out passengers for questioning or searches for reasons as seemingly benign as traveling one-way to California or having paid for a ticket in cash.
The DEA surveillance is separate from the vast and widely-known anti-terrorism apparatus that now surrounds air travel, which is rarely used for routine law enforcement. It has been carried out largely without the airlines’ knowledge.
It is a lucrative endeavor, and one that remains largely unknown outside the drug agency. DEA units assigned to patrol 15 of the nation’s busiest airports seized more than $209 million in cash from at least 5,200 people over the past decade after concluding the money was linked to drug trafficking, according to Justice Department records. Most of the money was passed on to local police departments that lend officers to assist the drug agency.
“They count on this as part of the budget,” said Louis Weiss, a former supervisor of the DEA group assigned to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. “Basically, you’ve got to feed the monster.”
In most cases, records show the agents gave the suspected couriers a receipt for the cash — sometimes totaling $50,000 or more, stuffed into suitcases or socks — and sent them on their way without ever charging them with a crime.
The DEA would not comment on how it obtains records of Americans’ domestic travel, or on what scale. But court records and interviews with agents, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not permitted to discuss DEA operations, make clear that it is extensive. In one 2009 court filing, for example, Justice Department lawyers said agents took $44,010 from two people traveling on a train to Denver after picking them out during “a routine review of the computerized travel manifest for Amtrak.”
USA TODAY identified 87 cases in recent years in which the Justice Department went to federal court to seize cash from travelers after agents said they had been tipped off to a suspicious itinerary. Those cases likely represent only a small fraction of the instances in which agents have stopped travelers or seized cash based on their travel patterns, because few such encounters ever make it to court.
Those cases nonetheless offer evidence of the program’s sweep. Filings show agents were able to profile passengers on Amtrak and nearly every major U.S. airline, often without the companies’ consent. “We won’t release that information without a subpoena,” American Airlines spokesman Ross Feinstein said.
By itself, a suspicious itinerary amounts to little more than a tip; it’s not enough evidence to permit agents to detain passengers, search their bags or seize their cash. Instead, agents use it to approach travelers and ask if they would be willing to answer a few questions, a process that often ends with them either asking for permission to search the person’s bags or having a dog sniff them for drugs.
Agents seized $25,000 from Christelle Tillerson’s suitcase in 2014 as she was waiting to board a flight from Detroit to Chicago. The Justice Department said in a court filing that agents became interested in Tillerson after they “received information” that she was headed to Los Angeles on a one-way ticket.
Tillerson told the agents that her boyfriend had withdrawn the money from his U.S. Postal Service retirement account so that she could buy a truck, according to court records. Agents were suspicious; Tillerson was an ex-convict, who had spent time in prison for driving a load of marijuana into the United States from Mexico. She seemed to have little money of her own. And a police dog smelled drugs on the cash.
Agents seized the money, and let Tillerson go. Her lawyer, Cyril Hall, said she was never arrested, or even questioned about whether she could give agents information about traffickers.
A year and a half later — after she produced paperwork showing that much of the money had indeed come from her boyfriend’s retirement fund — the Justice Department agreed to return the money, minus $4,000. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s office in Detroit, Gina Balaya, said prosecutors concluded that “a small percentage of the funds should be forfeited.”
“It was outrageous. It’s still outrageous,” Hall said
Federal law gives the government broad powers to seize cash and other assets if agents have evidence that they are linked to crime. That process, commonly known as asset forfeiture, has come under fire from lawmakers in recent years after complaints that police were using the law as a way to raise money rather than to protect the public or prevent crime.
“Going after someone’s property has nothing to do with protecting them and it has everything to do with going after the money,” said Renée Flaherty, a lawyer for the Institute for Justice, an advocacy group that has battled asset forfeiture cases.
To the DEA, cash seizures are one prong of a broader financial fight against gangs and Mexican cartels, which have reaped huge profits — usually in cash — from selling drugs in the United States. Agents “employ strategies and methods that attack the financial infrastructure of these criminal organizations,” spokesman Russ Baer said, including tracking the couriers they use to transport the money.
Baer said agents receive information from employees at "airlines, bus terminals, car rental agencies, storage facilities, vehicle repair shops, r other businesses." He did not explain why so many suspected couriers are released without charges.
Mining travel records
The DEA came under fire for harvesting travel records two years ago, when Amtrak’s inspector general revealed that agents had paid a secretary $854,460 over nearly two decades in exchange for passenger information. A later investigation by the Justice Department’s inspector general found that the secretary initially looked up reservations only at agents’ request, but quickly “began making queries on his own initiative, looking for indicators that a person might be planning to transport illegal drugs or money on a train,” according to a report obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
Five current and former agents said the DEA has cultivated a wide network of such informants, who are taught to be on the lookout for suspicious itineraries and behavior. Some are paid a percentage if their tips lead to a significant seizure. Records filed in asset seizure cases suggest the drug agency’s informant network is broad enough that agents have been able to profile passengers traveling on most major airlines, including American, Delta, JetBlue, Southwest, United and others.
“Basically, it’s what that Amtrak guy was doing, but at the airport,” said a senior DEA agent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the agency’s use of confidential informants.
Latest posts
-
PGrow diary mission impossible (low to medium budget lol)
- Putthataway posted
-
Let's See Your Frostiest Flowers- GNick55 posted
-
Gwhat’s wrong with my plant
- greenlover420 posted
