cannabisnews.com: U.S. - State Pot Fight Snags Area Grower
U.S. - State Pot Fight Snags Area Grower
Posted by CN Staff on September 12, 2004 at 07:57:39 PT
By Denny Walsh and Steve Wiegand
Source: Sacramento Bee
From the day he opened his retail establishment in an 80-year-old building in Old Roseville, he says, he scrupulously screened his customers to make sure no one who was unqualified was able to buy his product. He established meticulous business procedures and even joined the Chamber of Commerce."I worked my (butt) off to make this whole thing work," he said last week over a lunchtime bowl of soup. "... I was trying to be part of the community."
The federal government, however, says Marino did at least one thing very, very wrong."He was selling marijuana," said Gordon Taylor, chief of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's Sacramento office. "It's pretty simple ... you can't do that. It's against the law."Just which law - and whose law trumps whose - are at the core of the federal government versus Marino.And the Marino dust-up is just one skirmish in an 8-year-old war that has pitted states against the federal government, federal judges against federal prosecutors and two very sick Northern California women against the Bush administration.Last week, the U.S. attorney's office filed a civil complaint against Marino, a 51-year-old former electrician who opened his Capitol Compassionate Care store on Old Roseville's Lincoln Street in late January to sell marijuana to people with medical prescriptions for it.The complaint, in which the government contends Marino profited from an illegal enterprise, asks a federal judge to order the forfeiture of the 5-acre Newcastle property Marino bought for $550,000 last June, and the historic building in which he leases space.Snipped: Complete Article: http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/10717755p-11636236c.htmlSource: Sacramento Bee (CA)Author: Denny Walsh and Steve Wiegand -- Bee Staff WritersPublished: Sunday, September 12, 2004Copyright: 2004 The Sacramento BeeContact: opinion sacbee.comWebsite: http://www.sacbee.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmMedicinal Cannabis Research Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/research.htmFeds File Medical Pot Complaint http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19462.shtmlDEA Seizes Pot from Medical Marijuana Operationhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19444.shtmlFew Complaints About Medical Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18666.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #23 posted by FoM on September 14, 2004 at 09:45:07 PT
Hope
I don't like the term flip flopper. I guess I shouldn't have used it trying to be funny. I believe that we can look at different issues and come to different conclusions. I will be glad when elections are over. They said 50 days yesterday and it seems like a million years to me. If we have Bush for 4 more years we at least know what we are up against. If Kerry gets elected we won't know what to expect for awhile. Who he would appoint as Drug Czar will give us an idea of how it could be. Bill Maher said on Larry King last night that maybe it will be ok if Bush gets 4 more years. Bill Maher said Bush will have to clean up his own mess instead of someone else having to do it for him.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #22 posted by Hope on September 14, 2004 at 09:23:16 PT
Understanding
"Have you or anyone ever believed something with all your heart and later found out you were wrong?"Several times. Although in no way do I consider myself a "flip-flopper". Please! That's an insult to people who change their minds...which by the way is a well known “woman's prerogative”. Thinking can do that! Probably the main issue I changed my mind on...Cannabis/Marijuana prohibition.I used to be afraid God was "mean". I changed my mind.I used to believe nearly everything the government wanted me to believe with little questioning, thought, or care on my part. I don't now.I used to think everything had to be "blamed" on someone. I don't believe that anymore.I used to believe there were more good people than there are. I don't anymore.I like to think I grow and face every moment as "now"...the way I am...what I know and grows and some of what I know changes...because I know something different than I knew before.“It's hard for me to stand off to the side of my feelings about this election.” Yes…so I’ve decided to stand firmly outside the ring…the political “ring”. Not out of the “loop”…I want to know what’s going on, I just can’t see wasting any of my precious energy resources on something I can do very little, if anything about. I’m trying not, too. It isn’t hard to get in a “tither”. It’s harder not to. But it’s much more peaceful to the soul and is ultimately more beneficial…body and soul. I think.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #21 posted by FoM on September 14, 2004 at 08:27:52 PT
Hope
We all come from different states and we all were raised a different way. That's why we are different. Have you or anyone ever believed something with all your heart and later found out you were wrong? I have many times. Absolutes aren't something I like to stand on. I guess I can be a flip flopper too! I had to throw that in for a laugh. I know people have different political beliefs. It's hard for me to stand off to the side of my feelings about this election. I'm trying really hard to accept what I can not change. To change what I can and I'm praying for the wisdom to know the difference. Guns are something I just don't understand.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #20 posted by Hope on September 14, 2004 at 08:21:29 PT
and
I "tromp" good in my cowboy boots!My favorites are pink.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #19 posted by Hope on September 14, 2004 at 08:19:08 PT
a BIG stick
You know..."Walk softly and carry a big stick".Outside of enjoying shooting contests...even with just myself, I do really like having a really good, modern "big stick", just in case I need it."Be prepared"Liking guns makes me politically incorrect...I know. I've rather gotten used to being politically incorrect on gun issues and drug war issues. We stomp right on in where others fear to tread.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #18 posted by Hope on September 14, 2004 at 08:09:26 PT
Oh my gosh! FoM
Thank you. I appreciate that.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #17 posted by FoM on September 14, 2004 at 08:05:06 PT
Hope
You're my first friend on the opposite side of the gun issue! I do understand even though I don't understand.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #16 posted by Hope on September 14, 2004 at 08:02:29 PT
Dongenero
I'm a cowboy and can't help it. I was born to cowboys into a family of cowboys. I can't help it. You are what you are. I promise I won't shoot you or anyone else, unless you give me a damn good reason to. It's part of who I am, and I like who I am.Leave my guns alone. Don't mess with my horse. Be honest."Cowboy" is NOT a dirty word.About "plinking"...we call it "target practice". If it's done safely...it's fun. It's not about killing anything. It's about skill. We have contests and get togethers. We enjoy them. Like race car drivers enjoy their cars and hone their skills. It's not all about killing.I hope it’s clear that I’m not arguing with you. I understand that your stance is just as strong and worthy as mine. You just stand “right there” and let me stand “right here”. :-)I like you, Dongenero. Just because we disagree on this doesn’t mean I don’t like you. I do. I'm hoping you still like me, too!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #15 posted by FoM on September 13, 2004 at 16:35:47 PT
Correction
We had a gun but we don't have it anymore. We had one in case of an emergency on the farm and that isn't necessary anymore to even have it around so it's gone.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #14 posted by FoM on September 13, 2004 at 16:33:14 PT
Agog
My father was a World War Veteran and my husband was a Vietnam Veteran. They both put down their guns when they were done fighting. I don't have any friends that have guns and I never have. I know nothing about guns since they have never been in my life. My personal opinion about guns shouldn't be an issue.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #13 posted by Agog on September 13, 2004 at 16:16:06 PT
Peace Love and Flowers
FOM eloquently states: "It's a matter of how we want to live our private lives as individuals and as a family."Exactly!!!! I'm not for establishing a minimum RDA for cannabis or firearms..... However I strongly believe that we should be allowed to set those limits for ourselves. Said another way, you should have dominion over your own life. Here in California many have pushed for registering with the state as "approved patients". I absolutely recoil at that idea. My doctor already approved me as a patient, and I don't need further validation from "The State" or one of their LEO's... and I'm damn sure not going to register with them. If I ever have an encounter, then I'll produce "my papers" when I have to and not before.I like the hot button topics... they are good for developing reasoning and communication skills as well helping me really define my own position and understanding of themAgog
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #12 posted by FoM on September 13, 2004 at 12:52:27 PT
Peace, Love and Flowers
My goodness gun issues get everyone stirred up. I hope that we can talk about this serious issue without shooting each other. A little humor there I hope. We all have reasons why we believe in these weapons or we don't. No one is wrong. It's a matter of how we want to live our private lives as individuals and as a family. I mentioned in a comment how I feel and I will leave it at that. We are a country that is split on so many issues. The splits are annoying but they are necessary. We can't have a balance in our country without extremes and ultimately compromise. That's how a democracy should work.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #11 posted by dongenero on September 13, 2004 at 12:45:37 PT
not to belabor the issue but...
That's the point I was making earlier about the reason any citizens would require a military weapon. An admittedly inanimate object whose specific design parameters are that of killing humans in the most efficient and controlled way possible in a given environment.If that reason people need them is so that they can rise up and overthrow the Government as you state in your 2nd Amendment argument, then fine...lets all say that.
I just don't buy the plinking, target practice, oh I'm into the aesthetics BS.I reject the cannabis prohibition analogy. The effect of an individual smoking a joint vs. getting drilled by a Tec9 are vastly different.I think if you all agree that we agree to disagree we acn let this thread return to cannabis issues.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by Agog on September 13, 2004 at 12:29:33 PT
"Assault" Weapons & the Fed Gov't v. Stat
to all whom it may concern:**DISCLAIMER** THE FOLLOWING COMMENT IS NOT MEANT TO OFFEND ANYONE... HOPEFULLY IT WILL HOWEVER CREATE THOUGHT AND FURTHER DISCUSSION USEFUL TO OUR CAUSE. 1. Guns are inanimate objects, I have never heard of a gun that has an "auto-discharge" mode (ie: shoots all by itself with no human intervention)2. Fear mongering is used in the gun control debate just as it is in the Drug War, same tune... different lyrics3. Through TRUTHFUL education and training we shouldn't be any more afraid of guns than others are of cannabis.4. This issue is a great illustration of the way the federal government attempts to divide us and influence our behavior.... look closely enough and you will see both financial and power/control issues.The footage of the Los Angeles shootout occurred during the height of the gun ban.... The laws against assault weapons are no more effective than those of prohibition, civil forfeiture however is a cash cow for federal/state/local govt's..... (IT AIN't ABOUT SAFETY)One function of The Second Amendment was the recognition that a well armed citizenry could prevent overt Gov't tyranny.... ("To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms,and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." [Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, and member of the first Continental Congress, which passed the Bill of Rights]
see the Federalist Papers and other historical writings concerning the Bill of Rights. It is important to read the actual historical documents first to understand what the Constitutional framers actually had in mind.What does it have to do with the feds swooping down on this guy? Other than illustrating how much heavy handedness we've come to accept from the federal gov't, probably not much.... but this case may actually help Angel Raich if the feds only reason for coming in against him is that he openly sold the cannabis, thus engaging in "COMMERCE" hmmmmmm.Agog (carefully donning nomex clothing)
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by dongenero on September 13, 2004 at 08:44:00 PT
hunting rifles? I don't think so...propaganda bud
We're talking about mac10, uzi, ak47, 30 plus round cartridges....c'mon that's ridiculous.
The "bad guys" already have all they need??? Shheeesh, c'mon.
People are safer where everyone has guns? Like Afghanistan,Irag,Yemen, Sudan......the Wild West. I don't buy it.
Have there always been weapons? Yes. Have people always fought and killed each other? Yes. Does the logic follow that therefore we should all have military assault weapons. There is no logical argument I've heard to arrive at that conclusion.
Maybe once the Islamic militants overcome the civilized world and push us all back into the dark ages....but we aren't there...and all of us sitting around with an Uzi over our shoulder isn't going to prevent it. It's as likely to move us there a little more quickly in my opinion.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by dongenero on September 13, 2004 at 08:30:29 PT
"assault" weapons designed for plinking??
They are designed for shooting what? into the air??? Duh.They are designed for specific purpose. Maximum killing potential for the military. To try to state otherwise is absurd.Racing bikes are specifically designed to maximize potential for winning a bicycle race. They are not designed for taking human lives.
Military armaments most certainly are designed to take human life. To say they aren't is ridiclous. I figured this would bring a few out of the wood work but, your argument is weak. Sorry.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by Hope on September 13, 2004 at 08:13:57 PT
They are specifically designed for killing people.
"They are specifically designed for killing people...simple as that."I don't think so, Dongenero. They are designed for "shooting". I loved to shoot as a kid. If I killed something I had to clean and eat it!A "shootist" is as impressed with design and esthetics as Lance Armstrong is about his bicycles...I imagine...at least I'd think he would be interested in bikes and design.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by Hope on September 13, 2004 at 08:08:13 PT
Dongenero
The "assault" weapons they propagandize are deer and heavy game rifles. Don't be afraid. The "bad" guys that want weapons...big bad dangerous weapons...in case they want to do a "mow down" or terrify, rob, or something hideous and showy...those guys have whatever they want ALREADY! The guys you are worried about already have plenty of whatever they want. It's the law abiding citizen who can't own a weapon to protect his home...even if it is the so called "assault" weapon like his daddy used in Viet Nam.As all such stuff is...it's full of "poo poo poo". Guns are weapons. Man has had weapons ever since he figured he might better oughta. There is nothing in this earth that cannot be misused. Guns have saved more lives than is reported by the media. Many, Many more. Crime goes down where people have guns. We're better off with out the ban. It did nothing but make a show and hurt some people. It did not protect anyone.Really.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by FoM on September 13, 2004 at 07:57:04 PT
dongenero
I know that fear of our country being invaded would make some people want what I call big guns but at this point in my life if I would have shooting and killing going on where I live my fight would just quit I think. It would become a world that I wouldn't care to live in so if I was killed I wouldn't really care. Boy that sounds bad but it's true.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by dongenero on September 13, 2004 at 07:51:53 PT
assault weapons
Yea, I don't understand what the point of anyone have military armaments is about. I used to hunt..I can understand people having shotguns and hunting rifles, hunting bows. I can even see a point in handguns for some people. I have a friend who is a bank president in a small rural town. He is armed at home and work and it is understandable.I just don't see the point in most citizens having military weapons. They are specifically designed for killing people...simple as that. Where do you draw the line...M60s,50 cal anti-aircraft?, stinger missles? bazookas? explosives? The only reason for average citizens to take up military weapons would be if we're expecting to have to go up against our own Government.
Is that the message? Hmmmmm, maybe I am seeing the other side of the argument now.Please don't visit me on this one Mr. Ashcroft...freedom of speech, remember??
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by FoM on September 13, 2004 at 07:34:28 PT
dongenero
You mentioned about the gun ban lifting and I thought I'd mention what we did. I got so scared that we removed our one and only gun ( I think it's a 38 or something like that and legally purchased ) from our property. I feel better not having any weapon here but I have a Rottweiler and he does have a mean streak. I have a sweet dog I rescued from the shelter last year but she isn't aggressive at all. She loves everybody. I don't know why anyone would need a powerful gun. I never understood it. We had a gun incase we had to ever use it to end the suffering of a horse if something bad happened and a Vet couldn't get here quick.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by dongenero on September 13, 2004 at 07:25:14 PT
forfeiture?
So, the Government has issued a civil complaint and requested forfeiture of his assets.
It astounds me that in the United States of America the Government can seize all of your assets. Not to mention the fact that they have not even brought any criminal charges against Marino!
Well, as of midnight tonight everyone will be able to purchase their assault weapons....perhaps it's time for the citizens to take their country back?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by JustGetnBy on September 12, 2004 at 20:01:52 PT
I'm Pretty Upset
My indignation has about reached it's maximum higher limits. These federal #$#% #$"s are
nothing but parasites on the American economy. I have a very BIG word for them, one that I'm sure they don't know, one that they are
going to have trouble grasping. NUREMBERG...... NUREMBURG WAR CRIME TRIALS.... The Feds made this a war, they empowered agencies and branches of Govt/Military to implement
their war on the people, so did the Nazi war machine. They applied the rules to Nazi war
criminals after the war when they had the power, convicted and HUNG them. Since they made the
rules, we will apply
the rules to them when our time comes. And it WILL... history shows us that incredible
atrocities can be perpetrated on the people, but not forever, and the retribution is ugly.
Rant over.... It's really hard to argue in a logical fashion with a gun pointed at your head,
or while having your home and lifetime assets stolen by the govt.
All examples situations stated above are imaginary
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment