In response to:

Obama's Promise Could Send You to Prison

Chris from Kalifornia Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 8:19 AM
As long as the guy's business did not involve transport of drugs across the state line, the federal government has no business interfering. The feds have exagerated the interstate commerce clause of the constitution far beyond its actual meaning. It, along with the 10th amendment which specifies that powers not granted by the constitution to the feds mean that most of their drug laws are technically unconstitutional. There is no way I'd give this guy a guilty vote if I was on his jury unless they could prove to me that he transported drugs across a state line as part of his business. Plus: what about equal protection under the law. Why treat him any different than any other dispensary business?
Ms Kelly Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 4:37 PM
Chris: Where have you been? EVERYTHING is interstate commerce. Even things you DON'T do are interstate commerce.
ppotts Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 12:06 PM
Oh well thank you for laying out the rules for the fda. I am sure they apprleciate your guidance.
jimmylynn Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 9:02 AM
I think Matt Davies's problem is the ambiguity in the California law. It states that individuals or groups of individuals can associate to grow marijuana for their personal medical use. It does not state that someone can grow or distribute Medical Marijuana as a business.
ppotts Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 12:09 PM
He was an opportunist plain and simple. When you violate a federal law, it doesn't matter what the state says, the feds can get you if they want you. Therefore, I wouldn't think the marijuana business would be my first choice for something to do, but I guess if you smoke enough of your own product, you would believe anything. Like the article says, The heart wants what the heart wants.
comsense08 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 1:54 PM
Matt Davies troubles started when he shut the other out. Had he "shared the wealth", he might still be in business. Crossed the wrong dude!
jimmylynn Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 9:02 AM
I think Matt Davies's problem is the ambiguity in the California law. It states that individuals or groups of individuals can associate to grow marijuana for their personal medical use. It does not state that someone can grow or distribute Medical Marijuana as a business.
Like a lot of Californians, Stockton businessman Matt Davies, 34, expected that when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, the new administration would not prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries operating under a law passed by California voters in 1996. After all, as a candidate, Obama contended that he saw federal enforcement against medical marijuana as a waste of resources.

On Oct. 19, 2009, Deputy Attorney General David Ogden released a memo that instructed the Department of Justice not to focus federal resources "on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana."...